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. The description adds that results are restricted to open (not completed) tasks on due date, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering direction, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or result shape. Additions are modest against an already-complete annotation set.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the core resource comes first, the optional filters after the semicolon. It reads slightly telegraphically, as a fragment without an explicit verb, which costs a point on clarity but nothing on size.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the key facts an agent needs (what is listed, how it is ordered, how to narrow it) are present and there is no output schema to explain. Only minor gaps remain: the sort direction and whether the list is capped at 50 by default are left to the schema.

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%, including the ISO-offset/timezone guidance for vervalt_voor and the default/max of 50 for limiet, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates that the filters are optional and mutually independent ('alleen vóór een tijdstip of van één taaksoort') without adding syntax or edge-case detail — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names the resource and its scope precisely: open tasks keyed on due date, with optional narrowing before a timestamp or by task type. An agent can tell this is a filtered list of outstanding tasks rather than a single-task fetch like crm_taak, though it never names that sibling explicitly and the verb is only implied ('bekijken' appears in the title, not the description).

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 conveys usage through the word 'optioneel', making clear all three filters can be omitted to get the full open-task list, and sketches two narrowing strategies. It gives no when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., crm_taak for one task, crm_zoek for free-text lookup) and no exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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