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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds useful scope by naming the source (police open data) and the breakdowns, but it does not say what period is covered, how the comparison is normalised, or whether results are current.

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 description is one compact sentence that front-loads the resource and source. It is dense but every clause adds information about the available breakdowns, with no 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 tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the data content and its dimensions adequately. It omits the reporting period and any output shape, but those are secondary for this complexity level.

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 the single gemeente parameter already has an example in the schema. The description only repeats that the data is for a municipality, adding no syntax, matching rules, or edge-case guidance 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?

The description names a specific resource (registered crimes and nuisance) and enumerates the breakdowns: offence type, per 1,000 inhabitants versus the national figure, over time, and by neighbourhood. This is clearly more specific than the tool name 'veiligheid', though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as gemeente_in_cijfers.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no sibling. It only describes what data the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer that it is the right choice for municipal crime figures.

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