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 clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that data comes directly from insurers' own websites, covers the coming year, is monthly and without discount, and may include the previous year's premium if known.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs scope, exclusions, and source information without any filler. Every clause contributes directly to understanding what data is returned.

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 low-complexity, read-only data retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the data content, time scope, discount treatment, prior-year inclusion, and source. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list structure, field names), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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% for the single optional 'verzekeraar' parameter, so the schema already explains its purpose and examples. The description mentions 'per verzekeraar' but does not add syntax, filtering behavior, or other semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: basic health insurance premiums per insurer and policy for the coming year, monthly and without discount, including prior-year premiums when known. It is specific about the data returned, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool (none appear to overlap directly).

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 by the scope (next-year basic insurance premiums, monthly without discount), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is adequate for an agent to infer a use case but lacks deliberate routing guidance.

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