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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces the closed-world scope by naming NuActueel's own data as the source. It also discloses response characteristics (a checked-at timestamp and links), which is genuine value beyond the annotations; only auth or rate-limit behavior is left unmentioned.

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 place requirement come first, followed by illustrative examples and a short note on the answer's provenance. The long topic enumeration is dense but each item signals a supported subject area, so little is wasted.

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 single free-text parameter tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input language/place requirement, topic scope and what the answer includes. Only the boundaries of unsupported questions remain unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 parameter is already documented as a Dutch question containing a place, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds modest value by showing the expected phrasing style (short keyword-like questions such as 'hoeveel woninginbraken in Hoorn'), but contributes no further constraints.

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 states a concrete function: answer a plain-language question about Dutch local topics (work, traffic, council, fuel, schools, outages, crime) from NuActueel's own data, and it illustrates with three example queries. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from specialized siblings such as files, storingen or veiligheid that cover the same subject matter.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the enumeration of topics and the example questions signal the intended input style, and the schema requires a Dutch question containing a place. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this free-text tool over the specialized siblings, nor on what happens with out-of-scope or ambiguous questions.

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