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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioural context: the direction of the citation relation, that absences in the collection do not prove non-existence, that account linking is required outside the demo, and that subsequent pages require expected_sha256. These details add real operational value and are consistent with the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then adds caveats and operational notes in short sentences. It is compact and largely waste-free, though the caveats are packed into a dense paragraph rather than separated for scanability.

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, the description does explain the return content at a high level: explicit ECLI references and Dutch case numbers with original context. It also covers important caveats and auth/pagination hints, but it is incomplete on limit/offset behaviour and does not explain how an agent obtains or uses expected_sha256 beyond the requirement that it is needed.

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 parameter meaning, but it only explains that expected_sha256 is needed for subsequent pages and frames ecli indirectly. It says nothing about what limit and offset control, how pagination should be used, or what the hash represents, leaving most of the four parameters undocumented.

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: it returns explicit ECLI references and recognised Dutch case numbers from a stored judgment, including original context. That is clear enough for an agent to know what it does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as check_source or fetch.

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 'uit een opgeslagen uitspraak' implies the tool is used against saved judgments, and the description gives useful scope limits ('geen volledige citatiegrafiek', 'geen oordeel over gevolgd, verworpen of achterhaald recht'). However, it never names alternatives or explicitly says when to choose this tool over check_source, fetch, or search.

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