dutch-gov-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get details' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned details. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage for parameters, and no complex nested objects, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and resource, but could improve by adding more behavioral context since annotations are absent, especially for a tool that might involve data retrieval nuances.

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 both parameters ('organization_id' and 'include_datasets') thoroughly. The description mentions 'details' and implies datasets might be included, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get details about') and resource ('a specific publishing organization'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_organizations' by focusing on a single organization rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't specify what details are included beyond datasets, leaving some ambiguity.

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 details about a specific organization are needed, distinguishing it from 'list_organizations' which retrieves multiple organizations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_company' or 'search_datasets', and doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing an organization ID.

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