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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides almost nothing: 'get' implies a read, but there is no mention of permissions, behavior when the order_id is unknown, or whether the call is side-effect free. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the behavioral profile is undocumented.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the key concept (one request, by order_id) is front-loaded. It is efficient rather than bloated, though brevity here edges into under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter the description leaves out errors, permissions, and routing to the ten sibling tools. An agent has to infer nearly all calling context.

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% with one required parameter, so the description must compensate, yet it only restates the parameter name ('order_id') as the identifier of the request. It gives no format, expected source, or validity constraints for that ID.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Haal detail op van één KLIC-aanvraag'), making clear it fetches a single record. The word 'één' implicitly distinguishes it from list_klic_requests/search_klic_requests, but no sibling is 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_klic_requests, search_klic_requests, or get_klic_geojson. The only hint is the required order_id, which the agent must infer means 'I already know which request I want'.

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