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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the access mechanism (GET requests to public pages) and the fact that it never submits forms, contacts the shop, or modifies data, which goes beyond what the annotations state.

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 English portion is front-loaded around purpose, scope and behavior with little waste. The trailing Dutch sentence largely restates the enum values already given in the schema, which is minor redundancy but not harmful.

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 usefully outlines what comes back (page text with a link, or an order-status link). Given a single-parameter, read-only tool, essentially everything needed to call it correctly is present.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole 'topic' enum is already documented per-value in the schema. The description's list of topics mirrors that documentation rather than adding new format or precedence details, so it sits at the baseline.

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 (returns page text) plus the covered resources (levering, retour, FAQ, contact, bestelstatus) and explicitly contrasts with looking up individual orders. An agent can distinguish it from search_products and photo_size_advice without opening the schema.

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?

'Use for questions about ordering from this shop' gives clear positive guidance, and 'Cannot look up or change individual orders' provides an explicit exclusion. It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent should use instead for product search or photo sizing.

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