Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the useful constraint that results are limited to the linked account, but says nothing about result volume or pagination behavior despite the offset parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the resource being returned is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from omitting information an agent would need.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the definition is minimally adequate: it states scope and source account. However, with no output schema and an undocumented offset parameter, the agent gets no picture of result shape or paging, leaving a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one parameter (offset) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains nothing about it — no mention of paging, result limits, or how offset interacts with the default. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (returns) and resource (saved uitspraken and notities of the linked account), with the adverb 'uitsluitend' clarifying the scope. It is clear what the tool yields, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as list_dossiers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'voor een verzoek om het eigen bewaarde onderzoek te bekijken' implies the usage context (viewing one's own saved research) but never states when to prefer this over list_dossiers or read_dossier, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.