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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are partly covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: it is restricted to Dutch places/municipalities, and the return is the page's text and figures with source and link. It says nothing about freshness, result size, or what happens when a topic has no data for a place.

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 purpose and the output statement are front-loaded and valuable, but roughly two-thirds of the text is a 23-item enumeration that restates the schema enum verbatim. It is not padded with fluff, yet a meaningful share of the wording does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly states what comes back (text, figures, source, link), and the required `plaats` plus optional `onderwerp` are fully covered by the schema. For a two-parameter read-only lookup it is close to complete; only output volume and no-data behaviour are unaddressed.

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 both parameters are documented, including the enum and the default-to-overzicht behaviour, so the baseline is 3. The description's topic list simply duplicates the enum rather than adding semantics such as verbosity, combinations, or fallback behaviour for unsupported places.

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 ("een Nederlandse plaats of gemeente") and a specific data scope (per topic, with 23 named topics), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from closely overlapping siblings such as gemeente_in_cijfers, gemeenteraad, activiteiten, or mobiele_markt, all of which cover some of the same topics.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named. The topic enumeration weakly implies "use this to look up a place", but with several siblings covering adjacent municipal and topic data, the definition leaves routing entirely to the agent's inference.

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