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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: the explanation is 'kort, neutraal' and must not be used to suggest or fill in an answer. It does not state permissions, reversibility, or response shape, but for an explainer operation the safety-relevant behavior is well covered.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the usage constraint. No redundant restatement of the name or title, and every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter, read-only explainer the description is complete: it states what is produced (a short neutral explanation plus a concrete example), the trigger condition, and the forbidden use. No output schema is needed because the return content is described inline.

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 parameter's schema text already names the source of the id ('uit get_validate_questions, bv. psf-1a'). The description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so the 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 (geeft een toelichting en een concreet voorbeeld) applied to a specific resource (één specifieke Validate-vraag). This clearly separates it from get_validate_questions (retrieve) and submit_validate_answers (answer), so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('ENKEL wanneer de gebruiker zelf aangeeft de vraag niet te begrijpen of twijfelt over de betekenis') and when-not ('nooit standaard, en nooit om zelf een antwoord te suggereren of in te vullen'). Both the trigger condition and the prohibited use are spelled out.

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