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 structurally. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: no default page size, no indication of what ordering is applied without 'sort', and no note about result volume or het 'heeft_meer' signal, all of which live in the schema rather than the prose.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the capability list follows as a parenthetical. It is dense but every clause corresponds to a real parameter group.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the query surface adequately but says nothing about the returned shape (id, afgeleide velden, heeft_meer) or the default ordering. For a listing tool with no output schema, that is a noticeable but not fatal 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical list maps roughly onto q, filter, sort, paginering and kolommen, and the single-company clause explains bedrijf_id, but it adds no format or interaction detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Lijst contacten') and enumerates the supported capabilities (zoekterm, filter, sortering, paginering, kolomkeuze), so an agent knows this is a collection-query tool. It does not name the singular sibling crm_contact or explain the split, so the differentiation with crm_contact/crm_bedrijf is left implicit.

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: 'optioneel beperkt tot één bedrijf' hints that a per-company listing is a valid scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to an alternative. An agent must infer that crm_contact (singular) is the right pick for a single record.

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