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

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: results are ranked by average monthly cost over the contract term, include speed/connection/offer link, and address availability is not guaranteed by this tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core result and followed by a relevant caveat. It does not waste space restating the schema.

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 simple two-parameter read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description covers ranking basis, returned fields, and the address-availability caveat. It could mention result count or pagination, but nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that TV is optional and speed is part of the result, but adds no format or default details beyond the schema.

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 that it returns the cheapest internet packages, optionally with TV, ranked by average monthly cost over the contract term, and lists included fields such as speed, connection, and offer link. It is specific about the resource and ranking basis, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling telecom tools like mobiele_markt or sim_only.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only conditional note is that the provider checks whether a package is available at an address, leaving the agent to infer the comparison use case from the name and title.

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