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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, closed-world), so the description's job is what they can't say: it discloses the data source (NDW meldingen) and the refresh cadence (elk kwartier), which materially tells the agent how fresh the answer is. It doesn't describe result volume or whether historic/recently-ended closures are included.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope, source, and freshness in a compact parenthetical; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies scope, source, and update cadence, which is enough to call correctly. Minor gaps remain: no expectation of result shape or count, and no hint of what an empty answer means.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already fully documents 'plaats'. The description only adds that it may be a place or a municipality and that it is Dutch, which is marginal 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?

Names the resource precisely (roadworks and closures currently running) and scopes it to a Dutch place or municipality, so the agent knows exactly what domain of data it returns. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling 'files' (traffic jams), which an agent might confuse with closure data.

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 phrase 'die nu lopen' implies this is for current/real-time status rather than historical queries, which is a useful implicit usage cue. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to or away from alternatives such as 'files' or 'storingen'.

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