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

The description explicitly states 'Alleen-lezen, geen persoonsgegevens nodig', which is valuable behavioral context since no annotations are provided. It also discloses that the tool returns per-package activation requirements. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but for a simple read-only list tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the read-only/no-personal-data note is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place; no 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and the key distinction per package. It could mention the output format or what happens when the filter is omitted, but the schema already covers the parameter and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds context by explaining the output dimension (zelf aanzetten vs leverancier stap), which helps the agent understand the meaning of the boolean filter. Baseline 3 is exceeded slightly because the description clarifies the domain meaning of the parameter.

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 ('opvragen') and resource ('boekhoudpakketten waar Taklo mee koppelt'), and clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like taklo_info or taklo_prijs_berekenen. It also specifies the key output dimension: per package, whether the entrepreneur can enable the connection themselves or whether a supplier step is needed.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the list of accounting packages Taklo integrates with and the activation path per package. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names (taklo_info, taklo_prijs_berekenen) make the context clear enough. A small gap is the lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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