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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description usefully adds that the result is a triaged queue of three distinct item types, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or what an empty queue looks like. Reasonable added value on top of annotations, but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key concept ('Jouw werkvoorraad') followed by the colon-delimited enumeration. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the key unknown an agent faces is what comes back, and the description answers that by naming the three item categories. What remains unstated (ordering, item shape, recommended follow-up tool per category) is minor given the annotation 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning of 'limiet' as a per-type maximum with a default of 20. The description indirectly clarifies what a 'soort' is by naming the three categories, which is a small genuine addition. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource ('jouw werkvoorraad') and enumerates exactly what it contains: due follow-ups, rejected drafts to rewrite, and leads needing a new address. That is far more specific than the title alone and lets an agent predict the payload. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings such as crm_mail_concept or crm_open_taken.

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 implied rather than stated: calling this to see what mail work is pending follows naturally from 'jouw werkvoorraad'. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling tools that handle the individual items (e.g. crm_mail_concept for rewriting a draft).

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