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.