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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing that the server performs its own checks (CRM presence, do-not-mail, e-mail validity, social proof, target audience) and that a rejected proposal returns ok=false with a reason. This tells the agent validation happens downstream, which the readOnly/openWorld hints do not convey. The batching protocol implied by the 'klaar' flag is not described, which keeps it from a 5.

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 clauses: one states the action and server-side validation, the second states the response contract. No padding, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's return-value note (ok + contact_id, or ok false + reden) is genuinely necessary and present. However, for a 7-parameter, non-idempotent proposal tool with a 'klaar' round-closing flag, the absence of any explanation of the multi-call round workflow leaves a real 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 86%, so the schema already explains all seven parameters, including the nested social_proof object. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or the round-closing semantics of 'klaar' beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Stel een nieuwe lead voor') that clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_bewaar_contact or crm_kandidaat_overslaan. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description implies use during a lead-generation round against a campaign, but never says when to choose this over crm_kandidaat_overslaan or crm_bewaar_contact, nor what conditions disqualify a candidate before calling. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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