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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it reads public information pages via GET requests, does not submit forms or contact the shop, and returns a page link or an order-status link. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotation set; only rate-limit or freshness/caching behavior is unstated.

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?

Scope and limitation are front-loaded in the first three sentences, and the negative constraints are grouped efficiently. The trailing Dutch sentence ('Levering, retour, veelgestelde vragen, contact en bestelstatus...') duplicates content already stated in English, costing some economy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (page text plus link, or an order-status pointer) and what the tool will not do. The main gap is that it doesn't say how much text comes back or whether links are absolute, but the essential call context 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 description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter documents each value in Dutch. The description restates those topics in English and clarifies that 'bestelstatus' yields a status lookup rather than an order lookup, which is mildly additive but essentially duplicates the schema — baseline 3.

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: returns the current text of Nummerschilderen.com's own pages on delivery, returns/cancellation, FAQ, contact, and order-status lookup. It also scopes what it is not ('cannot look up or change individual orders'), so an agent can distinguish it from product search or order-management tools 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' plus the explicit exclusion 'cannot look up or change individual orders' gives a clear use context and a clear boundary. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (search_products, photo_size_advice) as alternatives for those other needs, so it is strong but not fully explicit routing.

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