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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('Alleen-lezen') and requires no personal data, which is important safety information. It also mentions that amounts are exclusive of VAT, giving the agent an expectation about the output. This is sufficient for a simple read-only calculation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose (calculating the monthly price) and then provides key additional details (breakdown, VAT, read-only, no personal data). Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states what the tool does, the output structure (breakdown of base plus extra users), key constraints (VAT exclusive), and safety (read-only, no personal data). The only minor gap is that it does not specify the exact return format, but this is likely not required for such a simple calculation.

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 already fully describes the 'gebruikers' parameter (type, min, max, description). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the pricing structure: 'bedrijfsbasis plus extra gebruikers' (company base plus extra users), which clarifies that the first user is included in the base. This enriches the parameter's semantics beyond the basic schema description.

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 function: calculating the monthly cost of Taklo for a given number of users. It specifies the resource (Taklo) and the action (calculate price), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like taklo_info, which is likely general information, and taklo_koppelingen, which is about integrations.

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 the tool is used when a user asks for the monthly price, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or mention exclusions. No guidance is given about preferring this over taklo_info or other siblings, leaving the usage context implicit.

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