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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that results are paginated and scoped to the caller's organization. It says nothing about ordering, permissions/authentication requirements, maximum page size, or behavior when the page is out of range.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted in other dimensions.

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 paginated listing tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unspecified, especially the sibling distinction from search_klic_requests.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only hints 'paginated'. It gives no meaning for 'page' (1-based? default 1?) or 'page_size' (default 50, any maximum?), leaving the agent to guess from bare defaults.

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 ('Lijst KLIC-aanvragen') plus a scope ('van jouw organisatie') and a pagination hint. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_klic_requests, which an agent could easily confuse with this listing tool.

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 versus search_klic_requests or get_klic_request, and no preconditions. Usage can only be inferred from the name and the 'jouw organisatie' scope.

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