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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that: the auth/budget gating, the refusal behaviour on personal data, and the return shape ('source passages, not advice'). With no output schema, the 'bronpassages, geen advies' line usefully sets expectations.

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?

It is compact, but the ordering is off: the opening sentence about a fixed Deliveroo demo is the least informative and slightly confusing, while the actual purpose arrives only in the third sentence. The sentences themselves are not padded.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers scope, prerequisites, exclusions, and return type, which is decent. But with both parameters undocumented in the schema and no param detail in the prose, an agent cannot tell what limit does or how the query is interpreted.

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% for both parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only constrains query content ('no personal data'), and says nothing about the meaning, format, length, or effect of 'query' or 'limit'.

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 gives a specific verb ('Zoekt') and a precisely scoped resource: published Dutch and Dutch-language EU rulings for a legal question. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like fetch and check_source by framing the task as case-law retrieval, though no sibling is named 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 states the precondition for use (account linking plus a source budget outside the fixed Deliveroo demo) and a clear exclusion (queries containing identifiable personal data are refused). It does not name an alternative sibling for cases where the account/budget requirement is not met, which keeps it short of a 5.

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