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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and an output schema exists, so the description correctly focuses on behavioral scope: income independence and explicit exclusions (dubbele kinderbijslag, woonlandfactor, 16-17 without school). This adds real value, though it doesn't discuss edge behavior like invalid age inputs or how the excluded cases are handled.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then the income-independence rule, then alternatives, then exclusions. Every sentence carries necessary information, though the exclusion clause is packed and could be marginally tightened.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and safety annotations already present, the description fills the remaining gaps: sibling routing, income independence, and scope boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (periode enum, leeftijden_kinderen) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that computation is based on age per child, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 computation (kinderbijslag/AKW paid by SVB) with its unit (per quarter and per year), scope (children up to 18), and basis (age per child). It explicitly distinguishes itself from nmi_kindgebonden_budget and nmi_kinderopvangtoeslag, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Names two alternative siblings with the condition that selects each (income-dependent allowance, childcare costs), and states an input rule ('Inkomensonafhankelijk: vraag geen inkomen'). It also lists what the tool does NOT cover, which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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