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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose 'Alleen-lezen' and 'geen persoonsgegevens nodig', which are meaningful. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but for a simple single-parameter info lookup this is acceptable.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the purpose, lists supported topics, and adds safety context. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the low complexity, one enum parameter, and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly: purpose, supported categories, read-only nature, and absence of personal-data requirements.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by translating the enum values into plain business terms (fair-use-belminuten, bijkoopprijzen, proefperiode, algemene omschrijving). It does not explicitly mention the 'alles' option, though the schema covers that.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Zoek feiten op over Taklo') and enumerates concrete fact categories, making the tool's role unmistakable. It clearly contrasts with siblings like start_gratis_proefperiode and taklo_prijs_berekenen, which are actions rather than factual lookups.

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 states clear usage context: use this tool for read-only factual lookups and no personal data is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the read-only framing and category list make the boundary with action-oriented siblings inferable.

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