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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return context (start and end gross monthly amounts plus the next scheduled increase), but says nothing about behavior when the CAO is unknown or when schaal is omitted, nor about rate limits or result shape.

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 dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the four CAO enumerations make it slightly list-heavy versus a shorter structural summary.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the key return semantics (begin/eind amounts and the next increase). Only edge-case behavior (invalid or unsupported CAO, schaal filtering effect) is left unspecified.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the four valid CAO values and the optional schaal example. The description's mention of 'per schaal (begin en eind)' reinforces that a scale yields a start/end range, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific resource (brutoloon per maand per schaal, begin en eind) and enumerates the four CAO domains it covers, so an agent knows exactly what data it returns. It does not differentiate against siblings, but the sibling list is topically disjoint (vacatures, files, zorgpremies), so confusion risk is low.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is a salary-scale lookup for four named CAOs, so an agent can infer when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named, and nothing says what happens for other CAOs or sectors.

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