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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds context beyond them: what each profile contains and the source-attribution obligation that affects how the result should be presented. It doesn't mention pagination or result ordering, but with 15 fixed species that is a minor omission.

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?

Each language block is one tight sentence listing fields plus one for invocation and one for sibling routing; nothing is padding. The cost is that the full content is duplicated across NL and EN, roughly doubling length, though that appears to be an intentional bilingual convention rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so the field list is a helpful overview rather than a required return-value explanation. Input behavior, alternative tool routing and attribution are all present. Complete enough for a single optional-parameter lookup tool.

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 enum plus its description already explain that the field is optional and what omission means. The description restates that same omit-vs-supply behavior in both languages without adding format or syntax detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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 resource and verb ('brandprofielen en stooktips per houtsoort') and enumerates the dimensions covered (warmte, brandduur, droogtijd, kWh/kg, vonkvorming, rook, geschiktheid). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling houtprijzen, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening any schema.

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?

Both invocation modes are spelled out: omit the argument to get all species, supply one to get a single profile. It also routes price questions to houtprijzen and adds an attribution requirement ('Vermeld bij gebruik: Bron opahaardhout.nl'), which is guidance an agent would otherwise have no way to know.

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