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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no note on result scoping, permission visibility, or what happens when filters match nothing. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical feature list is somewhat redundant with the schema but it is brief and orients the reader quickly, so it does not seriously hurt conciseness.

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 six-parameter list tool with nested filter objects, the schema and annotations together carry most of the weight, and there is no output schema to explain. However, the description leaves unstated what a returned company entry contains, whether results are permission-scoped, and how the filter/zoek interaction works — gaps that a one-sentence enumeration does not fill.

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%, so the schema itself documents the search term, sort format, filter clause shape, page numbering and page size. The description only repeats those parameter names in parentheses and adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Lijst bedrijven") and enumerates the capabilities it supports. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling crm_bedrijf (single-record fetch) or from crm_zoek, so an agent must infer the list-vs-detail split from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over crm_bedrijf for one record, over crm_zoek for cross-entity search, or whether filters are required. The parenthetical list describes features, not conditions for selection.

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