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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral content beyond those flags: the step plan covers tool choice, required data, caveats, and a verifiable link, so an agent knows what kind of guidance to expect.

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 that packs all necessary information into a colon-separated list without filler. Every clause earns its place by describing what the step plan contains.

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?

Given an output schema that defines the return structure, rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and a fully documented optional parameter, the description supplies sufficient context: it explains the tool's role and the contents of the plan. No essential invocation details are 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 coverage is 100%, with the sole optional parameter 'onderwerp' fully described by its enum and default in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Geeft') and resource ('stappenplan ... inkomensvraag'), and encloses the scope: which tool, data, caveats, verifiable link. It is clearly distinct from sibling calculators like nmi_bruto_netto because it is a routing/method tool rather than a specific calculation.

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?

Implies usage context: for carefully answering a Dutch income question with NMI tools, and it promises to tell which tool to use. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this versus jumping directly to a sibling calculator, nor does it state exclusions.

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