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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup on a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return behavior: it gives the nearest option when nothing is local, returns the embassy/consulate for the civic exam, and returns the alternative country when the exam isn't held there. It does not describe pagination or result shape, which keeps it below a 5.

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-loaded with what it covers, then parameters, then usage trigger — a sensible order. The middle sentences are dense and run long (nested parentheticals about CNaVT/inburgering), but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 and no annotation detail about return values, the description takes on the return-value burden and largely succeeds, explaining what the tool yields in the local, nearest, embassy and no-arg cases. Minor gaps remain around exact output fields, but an agent has enough to 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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It does: 'capital' is exemplified with Tokyo, 'country' with the ISO code JP, and the no-argument case is described as listing the capitals with a local option. Format and accepted value types are fully conveyed.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it finds Dutch courses, university departments, CNaVT exam centres and Dutch schools for children within 40 km of a capital, plus the civic-integration exam location abroad. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns (a lookup, not a search across the general corpus) and distinguish it from unrelated siblings like tdd_tutors or tdd_move_plan.

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?

It states when to use it ('someone lives outside the Netherlands and Belgium', or asks about Dutch classes/CNaVT/inburgering/Dutch schools abroad) and how to invoke it (capital like Tokyo, ISO code like JP, or no arguments to list eligible capitals). This is explicit when-to-use and argument-selection guidance.

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