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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: answers are sourced ('met bron') from CBS and police open data, and the fixed domain list hints at what will and will not be returned. It does not say how a multi-topic or out-of-scope question is handled, which keeps it at a 3.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the purpose and sources before the topic enumeration. The long topic list earns its place because it defines the answerable question space, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies enough to select and call it correctly: scope, sources, and covered domains. The absence of detail on return shape is acceptable since no output schema exists but the tool is a simple factual lookup.

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% and the single parameter already documents that a 'Gemeente of plaats' with an example (Hoorn) is expected. The description repeats 'gemeente of plaats' without adding format guidance, matching rules, or fallback behavior for ambiguous place names, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 the resource ('een Nederlandse gemeente of plaats') and enumerates the concrete data domains covered (inwoners, verhuizingen, woningbouw, inkomen, veiligheid, afval, zonnepanelen), plus the sources (CBS, politie). The only soft spot is the verb 'antwoorden', which is generic, but the topic list makes the scope unmistakable relative to siblings like gemeenteraad or wachttijden_ziekenhuis.

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: an agent can infer it should call this for questions about a specific municipality's statistics, but the description never says when to use it versus alternatives, nor what to do when the question is not about a municipality or the place is unknown. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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