RadioMatic: achtergrondmuziek en muzieklicenties voor bedrijven

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details such as output format, pagination, or limitations, so it adds little beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence but somewhat convoluted, mixing multiple clauses without clear front-loading. It is not overly long but could be structured more clearly to highlight the primary purpose.

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 is read-only with a single optional parameter, the description covers the main content: providers, questions to ask, and references to specific providers. It doesn't explicitly state the output format, but for an overview tool this may be sufficient.

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 fully documents the 'taal' parameter with an enum and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional semantics about the parameter, so the baseline score 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 states the tool provides an overview of business music providers, including questions to ask and pointers to specific providers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'pakketten_en_prijzen' and 'vergelijk_opties' by focusing on the provider list itself, though the phrasing is slightly convoluted.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vergelijk_opties' or 'muziekadvies_voor_zaak'. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: amounts are exclusive of VAT, before discounts, per establishment and for all establishments together, and each rate table is cited. This is meaningful for an agent interpreting results.

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 front-loaded with the core function and stays reasonably compact. The third sentence about calculating costs and savings is slightly redundant with the first, but it adds useful purpose context without becoming bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by stating what the result includes: annual base rates, VAT exclusion, pre-discount amounts, per-establishment and aggregate figures, and tariff-table sources. It does not explain the behavior of optional parameters like wachtruimte_m2 or behandelruimtes, but the schema already describes their 'alleen bij een praktijk' constraint, so the overall package is sufficient.

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 covers all six parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden. The description adds context around outputs ('per vestiging en voor alle vestigingen samen') but does not deepen the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Berekent') and a concrete resource: the annual base rates of Buma/Stemra and Sena for background music in Dutch business premises, using official 2026 tariffs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_licentieplicht (legal obligation) and muziekadvies_voor_zaak (advice), despite not naming them.

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 gives clear context: it is for calculating licensing costs, including savings with music not licensed by Buma/Stemra and Sena. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as pakketten_en_prijzen or vergelijk_opties, nor does it offer any exclusions or alternative routing.

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 cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool provides 'uitleg, bronnen en wat je kunt doen' (explanation, sources, and actions), which reveals output content and a consultative nature beyond a simple yes/no. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and the deciding factors; the second adds relevant scenarios and output value. No filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 decision tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the user gets (indication, explanation, sources, actions). It covers the main use cases and the deciding parameters. The optional fte parameter is not mentioned, but its context (only when staff hears music) is implicit in 'wie_hoort_het'. Overall, the description is complete for its complexity.

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% (only fte has a description). The description compensates by explicitly connecting the two required parameters (geluidsbron and wie_hoort_het) to the decision process, saying the outcome depends on them. It doesn't enumerate enum values, but it clarifies their role, which helps an agent understand the inputs' significance.

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 tells whether a Dutch business needs a Buma/Stemra and/or Sena license for music, based on sound source and audience. It goes beyond a simple restatement by specifying the decision factors, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bereken_licentiekosten or pakketten_en_prijzen, which limits differentiation.

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 gives concrete scenarios: if you received a letter/invoice from Mijnlicentie or want to know how to arrange music, this tool is for you. It implies this is the go-to for checking license need, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, so guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the advice is organized per zone and daypart and that it covers equipment compatibility and RadioMatic's involvement, going beyond 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?

The description is compact: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add scope. Every phrase carries useful information, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 advice tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the response will cover: suitable music per zone/daypart, equipment compatibility, and RadioMatic's role. Combined with the full parameter documentation and safety annotations, nothing critical is missing.

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 both parameters are already well documented with enums and a default. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning the 34 business types, so 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: recommending music for a business type, broken down by zone and time of day, and explaining how it works on existing equipment and what RadioMatic does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bereken_licentiekosten and check_licentieplicht.

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 intended context is clear: use this when music advice for a specific business type is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sibling tool set makes the distinction evident.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one conditional behavior—'Vanaf 10 vestigingen een voorstel op maat'—plus domain context about Buma/Stemra/Sena exemption, which is useful but modest beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose (packages, prices, conditions, new songs). The Buma/Stemra/Sena sentence is domain context that earns some place by explaining a key differentiator, though it is not strictly necessary for invoking the tool. No 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, safety covered by annotations, and no output schema, the description lists exactly what the caller gets: packages, prices per location, daily new-song counts, and conditions. The only minor gap is the unstated output format, but the described content is adequately 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 coverage is 100% (aantal_vestigingen is documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: 'prijzen per locatie' explains why the parameter matters (pricing scales with location count), and 'Vanaf 10 vestigingen een voorstel op maat' introduces a threshold that changes the result for that parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Geeft') plus a clear resource: RadioMatic packages with per-location prices, daily new-song counts, and conditions. This content distinguishes it from siblings like bereken_licentiekosten (license cost calculation) and aanbieders_overzicht (provider overview), though it never names them 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool answers questions about RadioMatic package offerings and pricing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or routing relative to alternatives such as vergelijk_opties or bereken_licentiekosten.

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 cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns a link, pre-fills it from the conversation, and indicates follow-up information. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main output ('Geeft de link') and contains no filler. The trailing clause 'en wat er daarna gebeurt' is somewhat vague but the overall structure is compact and scannable.

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 tool with only optional parameters and no output schema, the description says what is returned, that known details are pre-filled, and that follow-up behavior is included. It is reasonably complete, though the exact nature of 'wat er daarna gebeurt' could be more explicit.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema, including notes about values coming from the conversation. The description's 'met de situatie uit het gesprek al ingevuld' largely restates that, so it adds minimal per-parameter semantics.

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 states a concrete deliverable ('Geeft de link') and a specific purpose ('RadioMatic veertien dagen gratis te proberen'), while noting that conversation context is pre-filled. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bereken_licentiekosten or check_licentieplicht.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. The intended use can be inferred from the purpose, but the description does not help an agent choose between this and related tools such as pakketten_en_prijzen or vergelijk_opties.

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=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the comparison includes licensing costs (Buma/Stemra en Sena) where applicable, which is useful context but not a behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations imply. It does not mention output format or limitations, but with annotations covering side effects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main action ('Zet de jaarkosten naast elkaar'). It includes the target audience and purpose without unnecessary detail. It is efficient and well-structured, earning a high score.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and only safety annotations, the description needs to explain what the tool returns and how inputs affect results. It does not. It fails to mention that the comparison is based on business context (e.g., type of business, surface area), and it does not describe the output (e.g., a table of costs). This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 43%, which is low, so the description should compensate by explaining how parameters affect the comparison. It does not. The description says nothing about how 'soort_zaak', 'fte', 'oppervlakte_m2', etc. influence the cost comparison. The schema provides descriptions for only three parameters, leaving four unexplained. The description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Zet ... naast elkaar') and resource ('jaarkosten voor radio, streamingdienst, rechtenvrije aanbieder en RadioMatic'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on cost comparison across multiple options. It also states the intended audience and goal, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states the use case: for businesses wanting to compare music options or find a cheaper alternative to their current service. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling list includes 'pakketten_en_prijzen' and 'bereken_licentiekosten', but the description's focus on side-by-side cost comparison is sufficient to guide selection.

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 mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, covering its safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it searches both a knowledge bank and branch pages, and it returns passages with source and link. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the nature of the output and the data sources consulted, giving the agent a clearer expectation of the result format.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core action ('Zoekt in de kennisbank en de branchepagina's...') and then expands with a list of relevant topics. It is not overly verbose, and each listed topic helps define the tool's scope. The final sentence about returning passages with source and link is concise and useful. While it could be trimmed slightly, it remains appropriately structured for the information it conveys.

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 that this is a straightforward search tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies what is searched, lists the covered domains, and indicates the return type (passages with source and link). It does not need to elaborate on pagination or result counts, as the annotations already establish safety and idempotency. The information is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers both parameters (vraag and taal) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about these parameters; it only restates the general context of searching. According to the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already explains the parameters, and the description provides no extra nuance.

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: searching RadioMatic's knowledge base and branch pages for answers to business-music questions. It specifies the resource (kennisbank and branchepagina's), the action (zoekt), and the scope (Dutch business music licensing topics). The extensive list of covered subjects (Buma/Stemra, Sena, Mijnlicentie, streaming, etc.) makes it unambiguous and distinct from siblings that perform specific calculations or 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 clear context for when to use this tool by enumerating the exact topics it addresses (e.g., licenses, invoices, equipment, music genres per space). While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the broad topic coverage implies it is the general-purpose search tool, whereas siblings like check_licentieplicht or bereken_licentiekosten are narrowly focused. No exclusions are given, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for factual queries.

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