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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: repetition does not overwrite an existing note, and the tool does not handle case documents, sending or payment.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core save action, then idempotency behavior, then exclusions. No redundant or filler text.

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 low-complexity save operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior, idempotency nuance and scope exclusions. The ecli format and identification are left to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves a minor 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 must compensate, but it only mentions that the note is optional. It does not explain that ecli identifies the existing ruling or add meaning beyond the schema pattern already supplied for the ecli parameter.

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 states a clear verb (bewaart) and resource (een bestaande uitspraak) with optional note and target account. It distinguishes scope by excluding dossierstukken, verzending and betaling, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as save_research or list_saved.

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 indicates the action is performed 'op verzoek van de gebruiker' and excludes unrelated operations, giving implied usage context. However, it does not name an alternative tool or specify when to choose this over save_research or list_saved.

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