BoekenBase — Nederlandse boekencatalogus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response content (all metadata, authors, reviews, etc.) and adds a notable behavioral detail: coded fields include readable *_name fields. This helps the agent anticipate the output shape. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a simple fetch tool this is acceptable and exceeds minimal disclosure.

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 sentences, no fluff. The primary action and identifier are front-loaded, followed by a concise list of included content and a valuable note about field naming. Every clause 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?

For a single-record fetch tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the input and the expected content categories, and it implicitly differentiates from siblings. The only minor gap is lack of error handling (e.g., invalid ISBN or not found), but that is not critical for basic usage. The readable *_name note adds useful context.

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% — the isbn13 parameter is described with a format and example. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no extra context.

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 action (get full record), the resource (one book), and the key identifier (ISBN-13). It enumerates the content categories (metadata, authors, blurbs, reviews, editions, covers, availability), which distinguishes it from list_new_releases and search_books that operate on sets. No ambiguity about what this 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 implies usage when you have a specific ISBN-13, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusion conditions. It does not mention that search_books is for finding books without an ISBN or that list_new_releases is for new arrivals. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read/list behavior and adds a useful sort-order detail ('newest first'), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, auth, or response format. For a simple list tool this is partial, not fully transparent.

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 efficient sentence plus a short sort-order clause. Every word contributes meaning, and the core purpose 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 low-complexity list tool, the description covers the essential purpose, filter, and sort order. It would benefit from explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but given the simple scope and schema coverage, the remaining gaps are minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description only adds that NUR filtering is optional; it does not clarify how 'dagen' or 'limit' interact with results beyond what the schema already says.

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 lists recently published books, optionally filtered by NUR category, newest first. This scope differentiates it from get_book (single book retrieval) and search_books (general search) without needing to reference 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?

The purpose implies when to use it (for recent releases), and the optional NUR filter is mentioned. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over search_books or get_book, nor 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?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool combines full-text and semantic search and that results are relevance-sorted, which goes beyond what the schema alone reveals. It does not describe return structure or edge cases, but for a read-only search tool the key behavior is well disclosed.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the details about query types and search behavior each earn their 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?

For a search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what it searches, how it ranks, and what inputs are acceptable. It could be slightly richer by mentioning that exact lookup by identifier might be better served by get_book, but it is otherwise 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds context about natural-language queries and relevance ranking, but it does not add material parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: searching books in the Dutch book catalog. It also clarifies supported query types (keywords, title, author, ISBN, natural language), which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_book or list_new_releases.

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 clearly states what kinds of queries this tool accepts and that it is a general-purpose search over the catalog. It does not explicitly say when to use get_book or list_new_releases instead, but the context strongly implies this is the tool for broad or natural-language searches.

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