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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, closed-domain read operation. The description adds useful provenance by citing DUO open data and clarifies the statistical comparisons included. It does not discuss rate limits, response format, or other behavioral details, but the annotations carry most of that burden.

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 compact sentences that front-load the resource and its comparisons. Every phrase contributes useful scope information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the entity, the municipality scope, the data fields, and the comparison baselines. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating the return shape or unit of aggregation, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter, gemeente, and the schema description already explains it with an example ('Emmen'). The tool description reinforces that it should be a Dutch municipality, but adds no format, casing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the resource (middelbare scholen in a Dutch municipality), the included fields (schooltypes and exam pass rates), and the comparisons (previous year and national). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the intended output is still unambiguous. The sibling tools are all unrelated, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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 description explains what data is returned but never says when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. Usage is only implied by the resource description. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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