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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that results exclude phone, email, and raw GeoJSON, which is meaningful privacy/field-filtering context. However, it omits whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), how pagination behaves, and any auth or rate-limit considerations.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the exclusion list is placed immediately after the core action. It could be slightly more structured, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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 tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. It benefits from an existing output schema and the field-exclusion note, but it leaves out pagination behavior, read-only status, and sibling differentiation that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 says nothing about the page or page_size parameters. The only meaning available comes from parameter titles and defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap on pagination.

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 (Lijst) and resource (dossiers) with organization-level scope, so the core operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish 'dossiers' from sibling resources like list_klic_requests or search_klic_requests, leaving the agent to infer whether these are the same or different objects.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_klic_requests, search_klic_requests, or get_klic_request. The description merely states what it lists, leaving the choice between listing and searching entirely to the agent.

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