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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by stating the data comes from PDOK/Kadaster open data with no authentication required. Since the annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, the description's extra notes on open data and no auth add value without contradiction.

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 three sentences, each with a clear purpose: purpose, return fields, and data source/auth. It is well-structured and front-loads the core action, though the data source note is slightly redundant with the opening mention of Kadaster.

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 read-only search tool with four optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return fields, data provider, and authentication requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, relying on the schema for parameter details.

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 provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with detailed descriptions (coordinate system, defaults, min/max constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so a 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 clearly states that the tool searches Dutch building outlines (bebouwing) near a point and lists the returned fields (BAG pand identifier, status, source holder, relative height level, outline geometry). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling cadastral tools like search_percelen or get_perceel, though the resource type (building vs parcel) is evident from the name.

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: if you need building outlines near a point, use this tool. It does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention the sibling parcel search tools.

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