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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that specialisms filters hard on the taxonomy, that unknown terms surface in filters.specialisms.unmatched, that all-unknown terms yield 0 results with a hint, and that budget_band only excludes agencies with a known conflicting rate. It also describes the result cap of 20 and the totalMatched count.

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?

Although longer than typical descriptions, every sentence earns its place by conveying operational detail: filter semantics, edge cases, output shape, and a pointer to the allowed-values resource. The main search action is front-loaded, and the additional detail is organized without 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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the result fields including slug, name, legal_name, a one-line Dutch rationale, and totalMatched, while also covering edge-case behavior and pointing to the taxonomy source. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking this tool correctly appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining nearly every parameter: specialisms, target_industry, city, B2B/B2C orientation, company size, budget, and the near_city/near_lat/near_lon plus within_km radius combination. It adds semantics beyond the raw schema, such as hard filtering and unmatched-term behavior, and defers valid-value enumeration to categories://list.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Zoek Nederlandse marketingbureaus' and enumerates the available search dimensions (specialisms, target_industry, city, B2B/B2C, size, budget, radius). It also clarifies the output as a ranked list of slugs, distinguishing it from the singular profile-oriented siblings like find_agency and get_agency_profile.

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 establishes the search context and the filtering semantics that an agent needs to use the tool correctly, and it points to categories://list for valid values. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it, so it falls one step short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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