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.