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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states nothing is submitted, that address/file input immediately opens an editable map with proposal, price and quote, that the response contains the cost breakdown and leges, and that only the final quote should be confirmed. Auth, rate limits and error behavior are unaddressed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence and the type/alias rule follows immediately. The calamity-report paragraph is a digression but earns its place as a when-not-to-use signal; the flow is otherwise tight.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the flow and response shape ('verdeling in delen en de leges') but leaves nearly half the parameters semantically undefined, so an agent must guess at crs, reference and client_ref.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains klic_type (with enum values and alias), job_id semantics, and that address/file are alternative input modes, but crs, reference, client_ref, geometry, and the file_url/file_base64/filename split receive no explanation beyond hints.

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 first sentence names the priced resource types (graafgebied, oriëntatiegebied, adres, bestand) and 'Dient niets in' clarifies that this is a quote-only operation, not a submission. That distinguishes it from confirm_klic_melding, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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 gives concrete selection rules: klic_type GRAAF vs ORIENT (including that ORIENTATIE is an alias and has no start_date), when to supply job_id to amend an existing quote versus create a new job, and that calamity reports must go via klicbot.nl rather than this tool. No explicit routing to get_klic_request or confirm_klic_melding by name.

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