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 the tool retrieves details but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's low complexity (single parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the basic purpose but lacks context on behavior, usage, or differentiation from siblings, which is insufficient for full understanding despite the output schema covering return values.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'resource_id' parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate with additional context like format examples or usage notes for the parameter.

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 the purpose ('Get details about a specific file/resource') which is clear but vague. It uses a generic verb 'get details' and resource 'file/resource' without specifying what details are returned or distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_resources' or 'get_dataset'. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools such as 'list_resources' for browsing or 'get_dataset' for similar operations. Usage is implied only by the name, with no explicit context.

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