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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly explains the output structure (blocks), the meaning of provenance and statuses (not_configured/unavailable means not retrieved, not nonexistent), and warns against making assumptions. It also reveals special behaviors like match_verified=false indicating a different property and match_ambiguous alternatives, which are critical for correct interpretation.

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 structured into clear paragraphs: overview and usage, response block structure, meaning of statuses and signals, critical caveats, and a disclaimer. Although relatively long, every sentence adds essential context and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded. This density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value structure and semantics via block names and detailed explanations. It covers edge cases (unmatched address, ambiguous candidates, unavailable data) and explicitly prohibits filling missing fields with estimates. This is complete guidance for correct selection and invocation.

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%, with both parameters (address and depth) already described in detail within the input schema. The description does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it integrates the address ambiguity warning into the broader narrative. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Geeft' (provides) and clearly defines the resource: verified context of a Dutch residential address from official open sources. It distinguishes itself from potential sibling tools by listing concrete data categories (BAG, CBS, RIVM, energy label, heritage, schools) and explicitly stating when to use it (when someone asks about facts, risks, or surroundings of a Dutch address).

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Gebruik dit wanneer iemand vraagt naar feiten, risico's of omgeving van een Nederlands adres.' It also provides exclusions and cautions, such as stating this is not a valuation or legal/building advice, and clarifies how to handle ambiguous or unmatched addresses. Although no sibling alternatives are listed, the use case is precisely framed.

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