Eén hoofdstuk

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It describes the returned content but does not explicitly state side effects, read-only nature, or error behavior. The absence of mutation language suggests a safe read operation, but this is not made explicit.

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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what the result will contain: the full chapter text, sections, explanations, and legal references. It could be more explicit about response format or error handling, but it is complete enough for basic use.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('slug' with an example and 'met_wetteksten' with its default). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns the full text of a single chapter, including sections, core rules, explanations, and legal articles. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'hoofdstukken' which likely lists chapters.

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 use when full chapter details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as 'hoofdstukken' or 'oefenvragen'. No direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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