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

Annotations declare the safety profile (write but non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: a quota cost, a required user-consent step, and request_id reuse on transport retries. It also flags that no human reviews the output. It does not say what happens to the resulting memo (saved, retrievable), leaving that gap.

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?

Six short sentences, no filler, with the access and cost preconditions front-loaded before the 'ask permission' instruction and the outcome. The choppiness is stylistic rather than wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is right to characterize the return (draft memo with source references), and it covers quota, consent, and idempotency. But for a four-required-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, leaving the content fields undefined is a real completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains request_id (unique, reused on retry) and implies confirmed via the permission step, but feiten and rechtsvraag — the two substantive content fields with length limits — are never described beyond a vague reference to 'the provided text'. Two of four parameters remain undocumented.

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 final sentence states a concrete verb and resource: creates a draft memo with source references. That distinguishes it from siblings like scan_contract or save_source, which operate on other artifacts. It stops short of naming that distinction explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives real preconditions (linked-account document access, one question consumed from the shared bundle, ask permission before processing), which is more than a bare 'when to use'. However, it never names an alternative or exclusion, so an agent must infer routing from prerequisites alone.

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