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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive). The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the artifact is visible on the website and via other linked clients (a shared/persistent side effect), and a paid account is required. However, it doesn't mention the confirmed=true gate or the request_id, which are unusual invocation requirements.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and the stored content. No waste, though the account/paywall clause is tacked on at the end.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage on 6 parameters, the description leaves important invocation details (confirmed gate, request_id, how dossier_id is obtained) unexplained. It covers purpose and persistence well but is incomplete on how to actually call it correctly.

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% across 6 parameters, yet the description only mentions the note and ECLI references conceptually. It does not explain the required 'confirmed' boolean (const true) or the 'request_id' UUID, which are non-obvious invocation parameters that an agent could easily get wrong.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Bewaart ... onderzoeksnotitie en ECLI-verwijzingen in je eigen dossier') and distinguishes from sibling save_source by being about the research note rather than a source. Clear, though the sibling distinction is implicit rather than named.

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 'op uitdrukkelijk verzoek' implies this is user-requested only, giving some when-to-use signal, but it doesn't name alternatives like save_source or list_saved, nor explain conditions that select this tool over them.

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