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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: the resulting links must be opened in a logged-in browser, implying auth-gated resources. However it says nothing about link lifetime/expiry, permission requirements, or failure behavior for a link-generation tool where that matters.

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 with no filler, and the primary information (what links the tool yields) is front-loaded. Slight terseness at the cost of clarity rather than padding.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and there is only one parameter. Still, for a tool that produces access links, the absence of any note on validity, permissions, or what an order_id refers to leaves an agent guessing.

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 explain the single parameter, yet it only restates that an order_id is required. Nothing about its format, where to obtain it, or whether it refers to a dossier or a Klic request.

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 the resource produced (a dossier link and viewer link) for a given order_id, but gives no verb and no indication of what generates the link (a dossier? a request?). It is more specific than the bare name 'viewer_link' but not enough to cleanly separate it from siblings like get_klic_request or list_dossiers.

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?

'Openen in een ingelogde browser' is a prerequisite (authentication context), not guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No indication of when a viewer link is needed versus a dossier link, nor any reference to sibling tools.

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