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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: output truncation to the 20 largest deals per open phase, the `meer` field as the hidden remainder, and the `gewogen_totaal` formula. It stops short of describing ordering, currency, or how empty phases appear, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Terse, front-loaded and information-dense: the output shape comes first, then the derived metric, then the default for closed phases. No sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so fully — per-phase aggregates, the top-20 cap, the `meer` remainder and `gewogen_totaal`. Combined with the annotations and fully documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single parameter is already described there, but the description adds real meaning: without it closed phases contribute only a count, with it their deals are exposed. That clarifies the practical consequence of the flag beyond the schema's 'toon deals' phrasing.

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 precisely (verkooppijplijn) and specifies the aggregation it returns: per-phase probability, deal count and value sum, plus the 20 largest deals per open phase. This distinguishes it from a flat deal list, though it never contrasts itself explicitly with siblings like crm_deals or crm_kpis, and the action verb is only implied via the title.

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 only conditional guidance is for the closed-phase parameter ('Gesloten fases: alleen telling, tenzij inclusief_gesloten'). There is no statement of when to pick this over crm_deals or crm_kpis, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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