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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that a report is persisted; it says nothing about the multi-call round pattern implied by 'klaar', what happens on repeated calls (duplicates, given non-idempotency), or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and the verb is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tightness: the parentheses around "rapport" are an unexplained aside rather than a clarifying detail.

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 four-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining the round-closing semantics, the description leaves the agent without the operational model: whether calls must be batched, what 'klaar' does to the round, or what the recorded report contains. It covers the bare purpose only.

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 every parameter including 'wat', 'klaar', 'reden', and 'campagne_id' is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or interactions, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Leg een overgeslagen kandidaat vast") and hints at a report record with "(rapport)". It does not distinguish this tool from the likely-related sibling crm_kandidaat_voorstellen, so the agent cannot tell from the text why skipping a candidate is recorded here rather than proposed elsewhere.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. The only contextual cue, that a last call closes the round, lives in the schema for the 'klaar' parameter rather than the description.

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