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 genuine behavioral content by defining the metric (percentage change vs. previous week) and the default scope (all of the Netherlands), but it says nothing about update cadence, data source, or result shape.

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?

A single compact sentence with no padding; scope and metric are front-loaded. It loses a point only for the interrogative form, which reads like an end-user query rather than an operational instruction to an agent.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the metric and geographic scope adequately. However, with no output schema and no return-value explanation, the agent is left guessing how 'per sector' results are shaped, and the mention of sectors with no corresponding parameter is unexplained.

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 single `provincie` parameter is well documented, including the no-value default of heel Nederland. The description only echoes that scope in prose and adds nothing on province naming conventions or accepted values (there are no enums), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 conveys the resource and metric: the week-over-week change in open vacancies, expressed in percentages, scoped to the Netherlands or a province, broken down by sector. It is phrased as a user question rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `vacatures`, so an agent could easily confuse the index with a raw vacancy listing.

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 question framing implies the use case (trend comparison this week vs. last week) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing. With a sibling named `vacatures` in the same namespace, the absence of any guidance on which one to pick is a real gap.

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