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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait – that output size is bounded by max_features and that 0 means unlimited and should be used cautiously for large packages – but says nothing about permissions, whether the call is read-only, or the size/format characteristics of the returned geometry.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the payload-size caveat placed alongside the parameter it concerns. Appropriate size for a two-parameter tool.

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?

The output schema already documents return values, so that omission is acceptable. What is missing is a clear statement of what order_id refers to and how this differs from the sibling summary tool, which matters for correct invocation in a family of KLIC tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_features well (including the 0 = unlimited semantics not stated in the schema), but order_id is never described beyond the implicit 'voor een project', leaving the crucial identifier's source and format unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Haal IMKL GeoJSON op voor een project', which tells an agent exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling klic_geojson_summary, so an agent must infer which of the two to pick.

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?

There is a caution about large packages when max_features=0, but no guidance on when to use this tool versus klic_geojson_summary or get_klic_request, and no prerequisites (e.g. that an order must exist) are mentioned.

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