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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the answer (cost, conditions, appointment link, official source, milieustraten), which is the main behavioral unknown for a lookup tool with no output schema.

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 that leads with the core question and then lists the payload. Dense but every clause maps to actual returned content; the trailing 'Plus de milieustraten' is slightly tacked-on but still earns its place.

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 must convey return content, and it does so thoroughly (collection, cost, conditions, appointment link, source, milieustraten). What is missing is only edge-case behavior, e.g. what happens for an unknown or ambiguous plaats.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Gemeente, woonplaats of postcode in Nederland'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about accepted input forms or fallback behavior when a postcode spans municipalities, which is the baseline-3 outcome.

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 (grofvuil) scoped to a Dutch municipality and enumerates exactly what the answer contains: collection responsibility, cost, conditions, appointment link, official source, and milieustraten. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings plekken_in_de_buurt or waar_kan_dit_heen, so it stops 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: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'how does bulky waste work in municipality X'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to the sibling tools for adjacent questions such as where to bring a specific item.

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