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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the data source is OpenBesluitvorming, it is refreshed a few times per day, and coverage is limited to recent meetings and the last two months of motions and amendments. It does not discuss error behavior or rate limits, but for this read-only tool the added context is substantial.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core returned data and temporal scope, while the second efficiently adds source and refresh cadence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does so by enumerating meetings, agenda items, motions, amendments, outcomes, votes, decisions list, and links. The exact response structure and ordering are still unspecified, but an agent knows what kind of data to expect.

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%, and the schema already documents the single required 'gemeente' parameter with an example. The description reinforces that this is a Dutch municipality, but it adds no format, normalization, or matching guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: the latest and next council meeting, agenda items, motions and amendments from the last two months with outcomes and votes, and the newest decisions list. This is specific enough to distinguish it from every sibling tool, which covers unrelated domains.

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?

The temporal scope ('laatste en de volgende', 'laatste twee maanden') implies use for recent or upcoming Dutch municipal council information, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool or when not to. There is no similar sibling alternative to route between, so the lack of explicit guidance is a minor but real gap.

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