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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are time-sorted, cancelled reservations are omitted, and visibility is limited to locations the caller has access to. It says nothing about result size limits or pagination for a busy day, which is the only gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states scope, default, ordering, return fields and exclusions, followed by a short access-scope note and a short 'no writes here' note. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the annotations verbatim.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with rich annotations, the description covers what is returned, what is filtered out, and where writes must go. Minor omissions (timezone behind "vandaag", behavior when no reservations exist, result volume) do not block correct invocation.

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%, with both parameters documented (datum as JJJJ-MM-DD with default today, vestiging_id as a location filter), so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces the default and adds the access-scoping constraint on locations, but does not add syntax or behavior specific to either parameter 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?

Names a specific resource with scope and ordering: "De reserveringen van één dag (standaard vandaag), op tijd gesorteerd", and even lists the returned fields (naam, aantal, status, notities) plus the exclusion of cancelled records. The closing line "Boeken of wijzigen kan alleen in Ragently" makes clear this is a read-only listing, distinguishing it from the mutation siblings in the crm_* family.

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?

Gives concrete context for use (one day's reservations, default today) and an explicit when-not: booking or changing happens in Ragently, not here. It does not name a sibling alternative for other read needs (e.g. crm_afspraken), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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