Lees een pagina van de cao-kennisbank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds real value by disclosing the return content shape (Kern, Details, Historie, Open vragen, Bronnen), which no output schema exists to convey. It says nothing about size limits or whether the page label must come from 'onderwerpen', but for a safe read the coverage is solid.

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 tight sentences: the first describes output, the second gives usage conditions. No filler, and the purpose leads.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the page sections, which is exactly the missing return-value information. Combined with the explicit usage trigger, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the linkage to the 'onderwerpen' label source is left implicit.

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 there is a single required parameter, so the schema carries the semantic load. The phrase 'één hele pagina' signals that one page is returned per call, but adds no format or provenance detail beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource ('Geeft één hele pagina van de kennisbank') and enumerates the page's internal structure, which tells the agent exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly contrasts with the zoek sibling by mentioning search results, but does not name or distinguish the onderwerpen sibling.

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?

Gives clear positive selection criteria: use it when you need the coherence/context, or when a search result supplies too little context. This effectively routes the agent away from 'zoek', though the 'onderwerpen' alternative is never mentioned.

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