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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds context about the data source (PDOK/Kadaster), open data, and no auth required, which is useful for an agent to know. It also specifies the returned fields, providing details beyond the schema. Since annotations cover safety, the description adds value by clarifying data provenance and return contents.

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 packs the crucial information: what the tool does, the input, the output fields, and data source. It is front-loaded with the verb and action, and every word adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what to expect (municipality, section, parcel number, etc.) and that no auth is required. The output schema likely details the structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return format further. It could mention handling of invalid IDs or errors, but that's not critical for selection.

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 for the 'id' parameter already explains it is a feature id of a cadastral parcel, e.g., from search_percelen results, covering 100% of the parameter. The description repeats this, but adds the detail that the id is a UUID, which is in the schema. No extra semantic meaning is added beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get a single Dutch cadastral parcel by feature id, and lists the specific data fields returned (municipality, section, parcel number, registered size, validity status, boundary geometry). It also differentiates itself from its sibling search_percelen by specifying that the id comes from search_percelen results, making its role distinct.

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 implies usage: an agent should use this tool after obtaining a feature id from search_percelen. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the reference to search_percelen as the source of the id gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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