bereken_hypotheek_uitgebreid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format ('maatwerk leenbedrag met maandlast en NHG-inschatting'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe what the tool actually does (calculation logic), whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, error conditions, or any rate limits/permissions needed. For a complex mortgage calculation tool with 14 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary use case. Every word earns its place: the first sentence specifies when to use it, and the second describes the output. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 the tool's high complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the calculation methodology, what 'maatwerk' entails, how outputs are derived, or error handling. For such a sophisticated financial tool, the description should provide more context about its behavior and limitations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Gebruik dit voor maatwerk (rente, looptijd, energielabel).' It specifies the verb (calculate/bereken) and resource (mortgage/hypotheek) with customization aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this 'uitgebreid' (extensive) version from its siblings like 'doorstromer' or 'starter' variants, which would require 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Gebruik dit voor maatwerk (rente, looptijd, energielabel)' suggests this tool is for customized mortgage calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling tools (e.g., bereken_hypotheek_doorstromer, bereken_hypotheek_starter), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but incomplete.

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