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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: a hard cap of 20 results and the returned field set (id, titel, url), which tells the agent to expect truncated result lists and lightweight records. It does not say how matching works (substring vs fuzzy vs prefix), which would have pushed this higher.

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?

The core constraint (max 20 results) is front-loaded and useful, but the final English sentence restates the Dutch opening almost verbatim. For a one-parameter tool the text is not bloated, yet one sentence is pure duplication.

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?

The description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields and the result limit, which is the right instinct for a simple read tool. However, with 26 CRM siblings and a duplicate-looking crm_zoek, the definition leaves the central routing question — when to use this search versus that one — unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies examples and length bounds for 'query', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the query parameter beyond implying free-text search across three record types, which is a modest gain.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Zoek in het Ragently-CRM') and enumerates the searchable entity types (bedrijven, contacten, deals), plus the result cap of 20. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from the near-identically purposed sibling crm_zoek, so an agent cannot tell from the text which search entry point to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. With a sibling literally called crm_zoek sitting next to this one, the omission is costly: nothing indicates whether this is the general-purpose search or a narrower variant.

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