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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds the pricing model (0.003 USDC via x402 or 2 credits of a Factline API key) plus data provenance (Politie open data, CBS). Those are meaningful behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking, though return shape/pagination is not discussed.

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?

Front-loads the framing question ('Is this Netherlands neighbourhood safe?') so the agent sees the intent immediately, then layers coverage, consumers, source and price. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the only slight excess is the parenthetical Dutch term.

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 present, the description compensates by describing exactly what comes back: per-category counts, per-1,000-resident rates, the national rate and a ratio. Combined with source, cost and audience, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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%, so both parameters (postcode, CBS code) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description only reaffirms that either a postcode or a buurt code is accepted without adding syntax, format, or mutual-exclusivity guidance beyond the schema's 'Alternative' note. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: police-registered crime data for any Dutch postcode or CBS buurt code. The enumeration of crime categories (burglary, bicycle theft, vehicle crime, violence, vandalism) and the rate/ratio framing distinguishes it clearly from siblings like nl_neighbourhood or nl_flood_risk.

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 explicit intended consumers (relocation, real estate, insurance, travel agents), which tells the agent when this tool is contextually appropriate. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when-not-to-use (e.g. batch vs. single lookup), so it stops 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.