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 by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the data source (NZa open data) and the aggregation levels reported (national median plus fastest provider). It stops short of saying what period the figures cover, whether results are per-hospital, or how the data is refreshed.

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?

One dense sentence with zero filler, and the core answer ('how long you wait') is front-loaded ahead of provenance. It could be slightly easier to scan if the source were split out, but nothing 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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, source and the shape of the answer. It is missing the practical details an agent would want before calling: time period of the data, units of the waiting time, and whether 'waar het snelst' means a hospital name or a region.

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 'zorg' parameter is already documented with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's parenthetical examples (knie, staar, heup) restate the schema's examples rather than adding new guidance on accepted specialty terminology or free-text matching behavior. Baseline 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 states concretely what the tool returns: waiting times for a first outpatient visit, examination or treatment, with national median and fastest provider, drawn from NZa open data. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like zorgpremies (premiums) or vacatures. It never names an explicit verb, but the data-lookup intent is unmistakable.

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 only implied — an agent can infer you call it when asked about hospital waiting times for a condition such as 'knie' or 'staar'. There is no statement of when to prefer it over a sibling, no exclusions, and no note that the specialty argument is mandatory.

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