Briefverzenden — fysieke post

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the letter is only sent after the payment link is paid, meaning the operation's effect is deferred and conditional. This clarifies agent expectations.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main function and return, the second explains the critical payment-triggered sending behavior, and the third gives a user-interaction instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential workflow: ordering, payment link, and deferred sending. It also instructs the agent to summarize first. The schema handles parameter details. Minor omission: no explicit mention of error handling or idempotencyKey usage, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 high (78%+), with most parameters described in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning; it does reinforce that documentRef must come from the 'document' tool, but the schema already states this. No significant extra parameter guidance is provided, 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 function with a specific verb+resource: 'Maakt de bestelling aan' (creates the order) and explicitly mentions the return value (a payment link). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like document, prijs, and status, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear usage context by instructing the agent to give the payment link to the user, ask them to pay, and summarize what will be sent before invoking the tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the workflow direction is strong.

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?

The description discloses that the tool returns a reference and a page count, and specifies the input methods (base64 or HTTPS URL). This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover edge cases like both parameters being provided or error behavior.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with the main action upfront and supporting details following. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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 core workflow: provide a PDF (as base64 or URL) and receive a reference for 'bestellen' plus page count. It does not explicitly state the requirement for exactly one of the two parameters, but the overall intent and integration with the sibling tool are clear.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the crucial 'of' (or) relationship between fileBase64 and fileUrl, clarifying that they are alternatives, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Levert' (delivers) and clearly identifies the resource (PDF) and its purpose (to be sent). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it returns a reference for 'bestellen' and the counted pages.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Geeft een verwijzing terug die je aan bestellen meegeeft' (returns a reference to pass to bestellen). It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but it uniquely handles document preparation among siblings.

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?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses that this is a safe read operation. The description adds what data is included (registered mail, signature, tariffs) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, sorting, or whether the list is exhaustive. This is adequate given the low complexity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('De landen waarheen een brief verstuurd kan worden') and then lists the specific attributes. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only reference list, the description fully covers the necessary information. It explains the type of data (countries), the domain (letters), and the per-country details (registered mail, signature, rates). Nothing essential is missing.

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 zero parameters, the schema provides no input guidance. The description effectively compensates by describing the output domain (countries and per-country attributes), which is more than the empty schema offers. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description fulfills this by giving meaningful context about the returned data.

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 identifies the tool as providing destination countries for letters, with details on registered mail, signatures, and shipping rates. It lacks an explicit verb but its title and content make the purpose unmistakable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'bestellen' (ordering) and 'prijs' (pricing) by focusing on the countries themselves.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It only describes the content of the data, not the context for selecting it. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying what the final price includes ('inclusief printen, envelop en porto'), giving the user confidence about the scope of the result. It does not contradict the annotation.

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, front-loaded with a clear question and immediate instruction. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and expected inputs, with no 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?

Given that the schema fully documents all optional parameters and the description explains the output as the final price, the core information is complete. However, it could optionally hint that pricing varies by options like 'speed' or 'aangetekend', but the schema covers those 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains all six parameters. The description only reiterates that 'paginas' and 'land' are needed, adding little beyond the structured data. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 calculates the cost of sending a letter, using the specific verb 'berekenen' and resource 'prijs'. It identifies the required inputs (aantal pagina's en bestemming) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bestellen' (ordering) and 'landen' (countries).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the user asks 'Wat kost het versturen van een brief?' It implies the needed inputs but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer other tools. Still, the situation is well-defined for a price calculation.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds contextual value by informing the agent that input comes from the payment link or confirmation, but does not describe the return format or any further behavioral details. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and input requirements. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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, read-only tracking tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and inputs. It could be slightly more explicit about what the response contains, but the question format ('Hoe ver is een verstuurde brief?') implies a status answer. Overall, it is adequately 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (sessie and referentie), and the tool description essentially repeats the same information without adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: tracking the progress of a sent letter ('Hoe ver is een verstuurde brief?'). It also specifies the required input (session ID or reference), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like bestellen, document, landen, and prijs.

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 provides clear usage context: use this tool when you need to know the status of a shipped letter. It explicitly tells the agent what information to provide (session ID or reference), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This corresponds to 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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