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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: the default open-deals scope and, importantly, that deals with product lines are truncated to 10 rows with `regels_meer` holding the remainder — a result-shape behavior an agent would otherwise misread as a complete list.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the non-obvious truncation caveat placed last where it belongs. Dense and free of filler; the parenthetical parameter list slightly duplicates the schema.

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 7-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope defaults, pagination cues (`heeft_meer` also lives in the schema), and the one surprising return behavior (10-line truncation). Only the filter/field-register mechanics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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%, so every parameter (q, sort, filter, pagina, status, kolommen, per_pagina) is already documented in the schema, including the status enum and the 50-row cap. The description mostly restates those names in parentheses; only the product-line truncation hint adds 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lijst deals') and enumerates the capability envelope (search, filter, sort, pagination, column choice), which lets an agent separate it from write siblings like crm_bewaar_deal and from narrower tools like crm_pijplijn. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The default is clearly stated ('standaard alleen open deals'), which tells the agent the implicit scope of a plain call. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-crm_pijplijn/crm_zoek guidance and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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