Vakman in de Buurt

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency and non-destructiveness, so restating "Read-only" adds nothing. The description does add value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (matched service, municipality, up to 10 profiles) and the privacy limitation (no contact details), which the annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what it searches, what it returns, how to use the result, and safety. Slightly padded by "Read-only" and trade examples that are already in the schema.

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 steps in to describe the returned fields and the privacy constraint, plus the handoff to submit_lead_quote. Only the `limit` behavior and any result-empty case are left unexplained, which is a minor gap for a 3-parameter 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 coverage is 67% and the schema already documents the meaning and examples for `service` and the format for `postcode`; the description's trade examples are largely redundant. The `limit` parameter (default 5, max 10) is never mentioned — only implied by "up to 10" — so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (search), resource (craftsmen in Belgium), domain (by service and postcode) and the data source site (vakmanindebuurt.be). The examples of trades make the resource unambiguous and clearly separate it from the sibling submit_lead_quote, which is described as the follow-up write step.

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 explicitly routes the agent forward: "Use the returned expertise_id (and optionally a craftsman_id) in submit_lead_quote," which is the correct workflow with the only sibling. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. for trades outside Belgium or for contact lookup), but the context is clear.

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 safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds real value: consent gating rules, the fact that contact details are transmitted to the craftsman, and that validation errors come back per field so the agent can re-prompt the user. It does not describe what a successful submission returns, but with no output schema and strong annotations a 4 is fair.

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: purpose and routing first, then the hard precondition, then the error-recovery hint. No filler and no repetition of schema constraints.

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 15-parameter, 9-required mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps an agent could get wrong: consent gating, data-provenance rules, craftsman vs regional routing, and per-field validation errors. Only the success-side outcome is left implicit, which is minor given the annotations.

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 67% schema coverage, the description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by tying craftsman_id to the search_service_or_craftsman results and specifying that consent_contact and consent_text_shown must only be true when the user genuinely consented. It does not explain the enum values for desired_start or the postcode pattern, but it meaningfully clarifies the highest-risk parameters.

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 and artifact ('Submit a free quote request for a job in Belgium') and explains the two routing modes (to a chosen craftsman via craftsman_id, or kept as a regional request). It explicitly names the sibling search_service_or_craftsman as the source of craftsman_id, so the agent can tell the tools apart immediately.

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 an explicit precondition: 'ONLY call this after the user has explicitly given every field below themselves and agreed that their contact details are passed to the craftsman'. It also spells out the negative case ('never invent, guess or reuse details from elsewhere') and the alternative flow (omit craftsman_id for a regional request).

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