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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: account linking and source budget are required, semantic search may degrade to keyword search and that limitation is surfaced, results are original passages with version dates, and the results are not evidence of legal applicability to a case.

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?

Five short front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope/mechanism, fallback, prerequisites, return content and caveat, follow-up tool). No restatement of the title and no padding.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites, degraded-mode behavior, what is returned (passages plus version dates), the key caveat about legal applicability, and where to go for historical text. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 and it only partly does: 'Zoek zonder persoonsgegevens' constrains the query content, but nothing explains the `limit` parameter or its max of 5, nor the query length bounds. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 and resource (search stored Dutch national legislation) plus the mechanism used (existing hybrid searcher). It distinguishes itself from the generic `search` sibling and from `fetch_law`/`at_date`, which the description says are the way to read historical text.

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?

Gives clear operating context: use the hybrid semantic path, falling back to keyword search when semantic is unavailable, and the fallback limitation is reported. It routes historical-text reading to fetch_law and at_date, and warns not to put personal data in the query. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling `search` tool, so a 4 rather than 5.

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