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.