Taklo

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: this tool persists a callback request and does not trigger an immediate phone call. Since the annotations only provide false hints, this human-confirmation gate is essential for the agent to set correct expectations. This is a meaningful non-obvious side effect that would otherwise be easy to miss.

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 filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second immediately clarifies the most important behavioral caveat. Every word contributes value.

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 four-parameter tool with fairly self-explanatory field names, the description covers the core purpose, the recorded-request behavior, and the human-confirmation requirement. The main gap is the lack of parameter-level guidance, especially given the low schema coverage, but the overall calling context is understandable.

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%, with voorkeursmoment being the only parameter explained in the schema itself. The tool description does not compensate by explaining naam, telefoon, or reden, leaving their exact meaning to inference from the parameter names. A tool like telefoon could easily be misinterpreted as the caller's own number rather than the callback destination.

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 identifies the action: asking Evi, Taklo's AI receptionist, to call someone back. It further clarifies that the tool only records the request and that an actual call does not happen until a human confirms it, which prevents confusion with a direct calling tool. None of the sibling tools overlap with this callback-request purpose.

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 makes the primary usage context clear: use this tool when someone should be called back by Evi. It also explains the important limitation that this is only a request and requires human confirmation before any real callback occurs. It does not explicitly list exclusions, but no sibling tool is a plausible alternative, so the guidance is sufficient.

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?

With no useful annotation signals (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the tool does not create an account, returns a registration link, and requires the link to be passed unchanged because query parameters track AI-assisted signups. This is valuable behavioral context beyond structured data and does not contradict 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?

Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds a distinct fact: the trial-start guidance, the no-account-creation boundary, and the critical instruction to pass the link unchanged. Minor redundancy between 'begeleidt naar het starten' and 'legt uit hoe de proef werkt' costs a point.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains the core workflow and the returned link but omits parameter purposes, the exact response format beyond 'link', and any failure or edge-case behavior. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps for an agent to fill.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters (naam, email, telefoon, bedrijfsnaam). It does not explain that naam and email are required to generate the link or what the optional fields contribute, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.

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 states a specific action: guiding an agent/user to start Taklo's 14-day free trial. It clarifies that the tool provides a registration link rather than creating an account, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like taklo_info (information) and taklo_prijs_berekenen (pricing).

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 not do (does not create an account) and notes Taklo sells subscriptions, not quotes, which provides a boundary. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a direct 'use this when...' condition, so it falls short of explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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.