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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying return fields and the data source (PDOK/Kadaster), and noting no auth is required. It also implies the ability to omit coordinates for full Netherlands coverage, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, the alternative tool, and data provenance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the search behavior, return fields, alternative for detail, and data source. The schema provides parameter details including the optional nature of lat/lng and full coverage mode. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't explicitly state that lat/lng are optional, but the schema covers it, so the overall package is 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own explanations (e.g., 'near a point' is in the title and schema). It does not clarify defaults or units 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: searching Dutch cadastral parcels near a point. It specifies the resource (Kadaster BRK) and lists what each result includes (municipality, section, parcel number, size, geometry). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_perceel by noting that get_perceel provides full detail by id.

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 points to the alternative get_perceel for single-parcel detail by id, which is a clear when-to-use guideline. It does not mention the sibling search_bebouwing, but that is a different domain (buildings vs parcels) and the name implies the difference. The schema also clarifies that lat/lng can be omitted for full coverage, which is a usage nuance.

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