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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose one key behavioral trait: 'er wordt nog niemand echt teruggebeld totdat een mens het bevestigt' (nobody is actually called until a human confirms), which prevents a false expectation of immediate action. However, it says nothing about side effects beyond logging, permissions, or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states the action, the second clarifies the non-immediate behavior. Both sentences earn their place, and the critical caveat is front-loaded right after the action.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential caveat (request-only until human confirmation) but omits expected outcomes such as a confirmation or reference identifier, and any prerequisites. It's adequate for a straightforward request-logging tool but not complete.

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 voorkeursmoment has an example), falling below the 50% threshold, and the tool description adds no parameter explanation to compensate. The Dutch parameter names (naam, telefoon, reden, voorkeursmoment) are fairly self-explanatory, which softens the gap, but the description still leaves the semantics almost entirely to inference.

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 verb and resource: requesting that Evi (Taklo's AI receptionist) call someone back, with the clarifying distinction that it only registers the request rather than triggering a call. This makes the purpose clear and differentiates it by domain from the siblings (trial, info, integrations, pricing), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 trigger situation is implied rather than explicit: use this when someone should be called back by Evi. The description doesn't mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the sibling tools are so different in domain that confusion is unlikely.

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