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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the response is a readable-text dossier rather than raw structured data, and it aggregates linked contacts/deals plus recent activities — important to know since there is no output schema. It does not mention truncation, auth or not-found behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the value proposition (full dossier plus what it contains) before the id format. The trailing English sentence largely repeats the Dutch and is mild redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description does the load-bearing work: it explains what comes back (readable text, linked entities, recent activity) and the id syntax. Only edge cases — record not found, size limits on the linked lists — are left unstated.

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 a single required string id, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns more by broadening the id format beyond the schema's lone "bv. bedrijf:12" to also cover "contact:7" and "deal:3", clarifying which entity namespaces the tool accepts.

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?

"Haal het volledige dossier op van één record" gives a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one CRM record), and the enumeration "gegevens, gekoppelde contacten/deals en de laatste activiteiten" pins down the scope of the aggregate. It hints at differentiation from the type-specific siblings (crm_bedrijf, crm_contact, crm_deals) via "volledige dossier", but never names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied: the id examples (bedrijf:12, contact:7, deal:3) make clear it fetches an existing single record, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over crm_bedrijf, crm_contact, crm_zoek or search. No exclusions, prerequisites or failure-mode guidance are given.

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