nl_company_vat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses one important operational trait: the call is PAID. It also points to a free confirmation path. However, it does not mention failure behavior, response shape, or whether any restrictions apply, so transparency beyond purpose is limited.

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?

Three short fragments communicate purpose, workflow, and cost without redundancy. The key fact, VAT number from a KVK number, is front-loaded; every word 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 tool is simple enough that a one-line purpose plus cost and follow-up advice largely suffices. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the description explicitly says the output is the VAT number; it could still use input-format examples or error behavior, but nothing critical blocks correct 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?

The schema gives kvk_number with no description, so the name is self-explanatory and the description reinforces that it is a KVK number by saying 'VAT number for a KVK number.' It does not add a format, example, or transform guidance, leaving the agent to infer the expected value.

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 states a specific purpose: returning a VAT number for a given KVK number. It is clear enough to separate this from the listed company-search and EU lookup siblings, though it does not use a strong verb like 'retrieve' and does not explicitly contrast it with similar Dutch company tools.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: combine this tool's result with vat_check to confirm the name for free via EU VIES. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives, but the complementary relationship to vat_check is clear and actionable.

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