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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it depends on municipal open data and may ask for more location details, which aligns with openWorldHint and helps the agent anticipate a follow-up interaction.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite/behavioral note follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent lookup tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential operational detail: the required municipality and the possibility of needing more location input. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or ask for missing information.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that the municipality is required even though no parameter is marked required, and that some cities need postcode or street. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions and helps the agent decide what to ask the user.

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 clearly identifies the resource: next waste collection dates for cardboard, paper, household waste, green waste, from municipal open data. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools, which cover different domains.

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 description gives concrete usage guidance: the municipality is required, and some cities additionally need postcode or street, with the tool itself indicating when more input is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so no exclusion is necessary.

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