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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds substantial non-annotation behavior: a quota cost per invocation, an access prerequisite, a mandatory user-consent step before AI processing, and no human legal review of the output.

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?

Prerequisites and constraints are front-loaded before the behavioral statement, and every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense but appropriately sized for a tool with four required parameters and no schema documentation.

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?

With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description does well: it covers preconditions, cost, consent, idempotency, and the nature of the deliverable. Minor residual gaps are the absence of sibling routing guidance and any hint of size limits (tekst maxLength 60000).

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 carry the load. It explains request_id semantics (unique, reused on transport retry), implies the meaning of confirmed via the consent requirement, and clarifies that perspectief selects the viewpoint for clause analysis. The enum values themselves are not spelled out but are self-explanatory.

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 specific action and resource: "Onderzoekt clausules vanuit het gekozen perspectief" and scopes the output ("levert aandachtspunten, geen jurisprudentieonderzoek"). This differentiates it from research-oriented siblings like search or check_source, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 concrete preconditions: document access in the linked account is required, it consumes one question from the shared bundle, consent must be obtained first, and request_id must be unique and reused on transport retries. What is missing is routing: no indication of when to prefer a sibling tool instead.

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