Taklo

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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write with closed-world scope. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the request lands in the same inbox pipeline as the public web form, the requester receives an email confirmation, and no call is placed automatically — a human dials the given number. It stops short of covering duplicate submissions or expected latency.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then downstream effects, then the important human-in-the-loop clarification. Every sentence carries information; no repetition of the title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 4 required parameters, the description covers the key agent-facing concerns: what is created, where it goes, and that confirmation flows to the requester. Remaining gaps (duplicate handling, response shape) are minor given the annotations and absent output schema.

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 only 40% (email and voorkeursmoment are documented in-schema; naam, reden and telefoon are not). The description only indirectly touches one parameter ('opgegeven nummer' implying telefoon) and says nothing about naam or reden, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Vraag aan dat Taklo iemand terugbelt') with a precise scope: a callback request routed into the Taklo inbox. None of the siblings (proefperiode, info, koppelingen, prijs_berekenen) overlap with this function, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 opening sentence establishes the scenario clearly (a user wants to be called back), and the reference to taklo.nl's callback form anchors when this tool applies. It does not state any exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for this use case, so the gap is minor.

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

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

Annotations only provide generic write/non-idempotent hints; the description adds the substance: it creates a lead rather than an account, the applicant receives a confirmation email, a human follows up, and the returned link contains attribution query parameters that must be passed through unchanged. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context the agent needs for a state-changing call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the not-an-account clarification, then the link-passing instruction. The em-dash aside is slightly dense but every sentence carries actionable information; nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the returned registration link and how to hand it to the user, and it covers side effects and the attribution requirement. The only real gap is the undocumented optional parameters, which is a schema-side shortfall rather than a description failure.

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 only 25% (only email is documented), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the email receives the confirmation. The meaning of naam, telefoon and bedrijfsnaam is left entirely to the schema's patterns and length constraints, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 concrete action (registering a trial-request lead at Taklo) and its output (a registration link), and explicitly draws the boundary that it does NOT create an account. That boundary implicitly separates it from the other Taklo tools, though no sibling is named directly, so it lands just 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?

It states the trigger condition clearly ('iemand de 14-dagen-gratis-proefperiode wil starten') and clarifies that account completion happens elsewhere, giving the agent a real usage context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it is not a 5.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond these: 'geen persoonsgegevens nodig' – indicating no PII is required. It also reinforces the read-only nature and does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that starts with the action verb, immediately lists the fact areas, and ends with a short read-only/no-PII note. It is dense but not bloated; the enumeration is necessary to define scope and the structure is effective.

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 tool is simple and the description covers most enum values, but it omits two of the nine parameter values ('diensten' and 'alles') from its explanatory list. It also does not mention the return format, though no output schema is provided. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a clear enum and a description for 'onderwerp'. The description adds further meaning by spelling out what several enum values correspond to (fair-use-belminuten, bijkoopprijzen, fiscale keten, etc.), making the parameter options more concrete for an agent.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Zoek feiten op over Taklo') and enumerates the exact fact domains, distinguishing it from siblings like taklo_prijs_berekenen (price calculation) and taklo_koppelingen (integrations). It clearly frames this as a read-only fact lookup tool.

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 description implies usage by listing the fact blocks it can retrieve and adds a read-only, no-personal-data note, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over a sibling or when not to use it. Routing to alternatives like taklo_prijs_berekenen is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Alleen-lezen' and adds 'geen persoonsgegevens nodig' (no personal data needed). This adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 description is slightly verbose with an introductory sentence about Taklo itself, but it is well-structured: context first, then purpose, then constraints. It front-loads the key information about what the tool returns.

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 read-only informational tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it returns, the self-enable vs supplier distinction, and the read-only nature. No critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The single parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add details. It does not mention the parameter at all, but the schema already handles it, matching the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it shows what Taklo handles itself and which external accounting packages it connects with, plus whether each can be self-enabled. The verb 'geeft' and specific resource 'koppelingen' make it distinct from siblings like pricing or trial tools.

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 description defines the tool's scope explicitly (integration information) and implies when it would be relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but siblings are topically distinct enough that an agent would not confuse them.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Alleen-lezen' (read-only). It also adds context beyond annotations by specifying that the output includes a breakdown (company base plus extra users) and that amounts are exclusive of VAT. It further notes that no personal data is needed, which is extra behavioral disclosure about input requirements.

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 description is two concise sentences with no redundant words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Reken uit wat Taklo per maand kost'), followed by the key output details (breakdown, VAT) and a note on read-only and privacy. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately brief for a simple tool.

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 simple calculator with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential information: what it calculates, what the output contains (breakdown and VAT note), and that it is read-only and requires no personal data. The only minor omission is error handling or edge cases, but the schema handles the user range, and no additional context is necessary for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema description covers the single parameter fully (range and base user explanation). The tool description does not add new semantic meaning about the parameter beyond restating that it is a number of users and that the first user is in the base. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not degrade or enhance the parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: calculating the monthly price for a given number of users. It specifies the verb 'Reken uit' (calculate) and the resource 'Taklo', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like plan_terugbelmoment or start_gratis_proefperiode by focusing solely on pricing. The purpose is unambiguous and easily differentiated.

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 description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools for pricing scenarios. However, the context is clear: an agent would infer to use this for price queries, but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling.

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