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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job explaining what the tool calculates (max_woningbudget, overwaarde_bedrag, etc.), how to present results to users (two compact blocks with specific formatting), and detailed input handling requirements. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would make it a perfect 5.

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 comprehensive but somewhat lengthy and mixes multiple concerns (output fields, presentation guidelines, input approaches). While all information is valuable, it could be more efficiently structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but subsequent sections could be better organized for quicker comprehension by an AI agent.

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 complex mortgage calculation tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering what's needed. It explains output fields, presentation requirements, and input handling scenarios. The main gap is the lack of explicit error handling or edge case guidance, preventing a perfect score.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two input approaches for 'bestaande_hypotheek' (quick global calculation vs detailed calculation) and mandating how to ask users about their preference. This provides crucial context beyond the schema's technical parameter definitions, though it doesn't elaborate on all 9 parameters' business logic.

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: 'Berekent de maximale hypotheek voor doorstromers (standaard variant)' which translates to 'Calculates the maximum mortgage for movers (standard variant)'. This specifies both the action (calculates maximum mortgage) and the target audience (doorstromers/movers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bereken_hypotheek_starter and bereken_hypotheek_uitgebreid.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Alle regels uit het doorstromerbeleid gelden ook voor de uitgebreide tool' indicates this is the standard variant for movers, with an extended tool available. It also specifies detailed input scenarios (quick global calculation vs detailed calculation) and mandates asking the user which approach they prefer, providing clear operational guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool calculates, it doesn't describe how it works: what formula or rules are used, whether it's a simulation or official calculation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or data persistence. For a financial calculation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and output. It's front-loaded with the main function and follows with output details. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could potentially be more structured by separating purpose from output more clearly.

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 financial calculation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the calculation methodology, accuracy limitations, whether results are binding estimates, or how it differs from sibling tools. The output mentions are helpful but lack detail about format or units. Given the complexity and absence of structured behavioral information, more context is needed.

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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how partner income affects calculation) or provide context about the calculation methodology. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Berekent de maximale hypotheek voor starters' (Calculates the maximum mortgage for starters). It specifies the target user group (starters) and mentions the output includes maximum loan amount, monthly costs, and NHG comparison. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bereken_hypotheek_doorstromer or bereken_hypotheek_uitgebreid, which likely target different user groups.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like bereken_hypotheek_doorstromer and bereken_hypotheek_uitgebreid available, there's no indication of what distinguishes 'starters' from 'doorstromers' or when to choose the 'uitgebreid' version. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to other calculation tools.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job describing output format, presentation requirements, and input handling logic (the two calculation approaches for existing mortgages). It explains what the tool returns and how to present it to users. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements, which prevents a perfect score.

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 comprehensive but lengthy and could be more front-loaded. While every section adds value, the structure mixes purpose, output format, presentation guidelines, and input handling without clear separation. The core purpose is stated early, but the detailed formatting instructions and calculation approaches could be more efficiently organized to help agents quickly grasp the tool's essence.

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 complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description does an excellent job providing context. It explains output fields, presentation requirements, and input handling logic. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't fully document the return structure's data types or potential error responses, and it doesn't address edge cases or limitations, leaving some gaps for a complex financial calculation tool.

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 all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds significant value by explaining the two approaches for handling 'bestaande_hypotheek' (quick global calculation vs. detailed calculation) and providing guidance on how to ask users about their preference. This contextual information about parameter usage goes beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't cover all parameters equally.

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). Output: maatwerk leenbedrag met maandlast en NHG-inschatting.' It specifies the verb (calculate/bereken), resource (mortgage/hypotheek), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'maatwerk' (customization) for advanced scenarios with specific parameters like interest rate, term, and energy label.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use this tool (for customized calculations with specific parameters) and references sibling tools ('dezelfde regels als bij de standaard doorstromer-tool'). It also specifies when it applies to 'doorstromer' scenarios (when is_doorstromer=true or bestaande_hypotheek is filled), creating clear boundaries versus alternatives like bereken_hypotheek_starter or bereken_hypotheek_doorstromer.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format ('overzicht met NHG- en niet-NHG-tarieven'), which adds some context, but lacks details on critical behaviors like data freshness, source reliability, rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and output. There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It efficiently communicates the essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output format, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., how current the rates are, any limitations). For a tool fetching financial data, more context on data currency and reliability would be beneficial, but it meets the basic threshold.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. It does mention the output includes NHG and non-NHG rates, which provides context on what data is returned.

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: 'Haalt actuele hypotheekrentes op per rentevaste periode' (Fetches current mortgage rates per fixed-rate period). It specifies the verb ('haalt op') and resource ('hypotheekrentes'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rate retrieval rather than calculation or setup. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar rate-fetching tools that might exist elsewhere.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any of the sibling tools (e.g., bereken_hypotheek_* for calculations or opzet_hypotheek_* for setup), nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's interactive behavior (mandatory questions to ask users), input handling policies for different calculation types, and output structure. However, it doesn't mention computational limitations, error conditions, or performance characteristics that might be relevant for a complex financial 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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first sentence clearly states purpose and output, but the detailed input policy section dominates. While necessary for usage guidance, it creates a front-loaded structure that could be more balanced. Every sentence earns its place, but the flow could be improved.

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 complex tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage procedures, and behavioral expectations. The main gap is the lack of output format details beyond high-level categories, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the conceptual approach to handling existing mortgages (global vs detailed calculation) and how this affects the 'leningdelen' array parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context for other parameters beyond what's in the schema.

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: 'Berekent de hypotheekopzet voor doorstromers met bestaande woning' (Calculates mortgage setup for movers with existing property). It specifies the exact output format and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'doorstromers' (movers) with existing properties, unlike starter or uitgebreid variants.

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 explicit usage guidance with mandatory questions to ask users: 'Wilt u een snelle globale berekening... of een detailberekening...' (Do you want a quick global calculation... or a detailed calculation...). It clearly explains when to use each approach and how to handle input based on user choice, offering complete procedural guidance.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the calculation function and output format. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only calculation or if it creates records, what permissions might be needed, whether it has rate limits, or how it handles errors. The output description is helpful but insufficient for a tool with complex nested parameters.

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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with output details. Every element serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output specification.

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 complex mortgage calculation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the calculation methodology, assumptions, limitations, or error conditions. The output description helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context needed for proper tool invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive input schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide additional context about how the calculation uses these inputs.

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 with a specific verb ('Berekent' - calculates) and resource ('hypotheekopzet voor starters' - mortgage setup for starters), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for 'starters' rather than 'doorstromer' or 'uitgebreid' variants.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like 'opzet_hypotheek_doorstromer' or 'opzet_hypotheek_uitgebreid'. It doesn't explain what makes a 'starter' different from other mortgage applicants or when to choose this specific variant.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses behavioral traits: it's a calculation tool (not a transaction), mentions comprehensive output content, specifies two distinct input workflows for movers, and indicates it handles complex scenarios with manual parameter control. It doesn't mention performance characteristics or error handling, but covers core behavioral aspects well.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, output features, usage guidelines, mover input policy). It's appropriately sized for a complex tool, though the mover policy section is quite detailed. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy exists between the overview and output features list.

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 complex mortgage calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well. It explains the tool's advanced nature, when to use it, what it includes beyond sibling tools, and provides specific input workflows. The main gap is lack of output format description, but given the complexity and good parameter coverage, it's mostly complete.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about 'deviating parameters' and the mover input policies, but doesn't provide additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs an 'advanced mortgage calculation with FULL control over all parameters' and specifies it's suitable for both starters and movers. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it includes everything from the starter/mover tools plus additional features like manual loan part definition, custom rates, and comprehensive balance checks.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this tool only when deviating parameters are needed; otherwise use the specific starter/mover variants.' It also includes detailed mover input policies with two distinct calculation routes (quick vs. detailed), giving clear when-to-use instructions and alternatives.

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