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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine value beyond that with the freshness guarantee ('Elk halfuur bij de bron nagekeken'), which tells an agent data is current and sourced. However, it says nothing about result volume, ranking of 'nieuwste', or pagination, which matters for a listing 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, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the freshness guarantee last. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched but not how filters behave or what the results look like. Adequate to attempt a call, but the boolean-semantics gap and absent sibling disambiguation leave real risk of a wrong invocation.

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 50%: `beroep` and `plaats` have schema descriptions, while `parttime` and `zonder_diploma` are bare booleans. The description echoes both filters but never resolves the key ambiguity — whether true means 'only part-time/only no-diploma' or merely 'include'. That gap is left unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'nieuwste open vacatures' scoped to a Dutch municipality/place. It is clear what the tool returns, but the sibling `vacature_index` is never mentioned, so an agent must guess which of the two vacancy tools to pick.

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?

Nothing states when to use this versus `vacature_index`, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the mention of optional filters.

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