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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context with the return line format ('periode type: naam @ref'), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth.

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 compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The output-format fragment is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but it still earns its place.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing piece an agent would want: the shape of the returned lines. Only pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the schema already states '1, 2 or 3; omit for all'. The description's 'per leerjaar' merely echoes the parameter rather than adding syntax or default behavior, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('GLU Web Development assignments') with scope ('per leerjaar, plus other top-level pages'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings 'read' and 'search', which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings 'read' or 'search', and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name and the phrase 'per leerjaar'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds real behavioral context: content is returned as compact markdown, links are rendered as [text](@ref) or [img: ..](@ref), and @refs must be followed to retrieve linked content — details an agent cannot infer from 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?

Four dense sentences, purpose front-loaded first, then target forms, then link rendering, then long-page handling — no filler. The telegraphic style keeps it short, though the parenthetical examples and semicolon-joined clauses make it slightly run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return shape (compact markdown with @ref links) plus the long-page escape hatch. Combined with annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only the missing search-first routing 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 coverage is only 33% (just `section`), so the description carries most of the burden and does so well for `target`: @ref, Notion URL/id, assignment name/period with examples, or http(s) URL. `part` is only weakly explained ('use part or section' for long pages), leaving its integer semantics and relationship to `section` partly implicit.

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?

States a precise verb (read) plus the exact resource types (Notion page, image, any web URL) and the output form (compact markdown). Against siblings search and list_assignments, the fetch-content role is unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

It gives operational guidance for a given call (which target forms are accepted, follow @ref links, use part/section for long pages) but never states when to pick this tool over search or list_assignments, nor any prerequisite such as needing a @ref found via search. Usage is implied rather than framed against alternatives.

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

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the AND matching semantics ('All words must match') and the return payload ('pages with @ref, assignment and snippet'), the latter being especially valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by return shape and matching rule. No filler; each sentence carries information.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result fields, and matching semantics. It omits any mention of the limit/pagination behavior, which an agent needs to reason about result counts.

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 0% for both parameters. The description adds meaning to query via the AND matching rule, but says nothing about limit (default 8), so half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (pages), and enumerates the scope: assignments, subpages, databases. This differentiates it from list_assignments (enumerate) and read (fetch one), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. It does not tell the agent to reach for this tool when the page ID is unknown, nor when to prefer list_assignments or read instead. The scope of 'all pages' implies usage but no explicit selection criteria are offered.

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