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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that geometry is stripped and only counts plus a sample of properties are returned, but says nothing about permissions, delivery size limits, or whether the sample is stable across calls.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key differentiator (no raw geometry) lands before the reader has to dig. It could still spend a clause on the parameters without becoming bloated.

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 structure needn't be restated, and the description covers the summary's shape. But with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, an agent cannot tell what max_sample does or what input constraints apply.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. order_id is guessable from its name, but max_sample (default 20) is completely opaque — sample of what, features or properties — and must be documented somewhere.

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 action on a specific resource: a compact summary of an IMKL delivery yielding feature count plus a few properties. The phrase 'zonder ruwe geometrie' implicitly separates it from get_klic_geojson, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied by the contrast with raw geometry — an agent can infer 'use this instead of get_klic_geojson when you don't need coordinates', but there is no explicit when/when-not, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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