dutch-gov-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the dataset limitation (free open dataset only), company type restrictions (BV/NV only), and data truncation (postal codes to 2 digits). However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid KVK numbers.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences: the core purpose, dataset/type limitations, and data format detail. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or 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 the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need description), 100% schema coverage, and moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, scope limitations, and data format details. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 a single well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the KVK number represents ('Chamber of Commerce registry') and that it's 8-digit, but this largely repeats schema information rather than providing significant additional semantic meaning.

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 specific action ('Look up') and resource ('Dutch company'), distinguishes the scope by specifying 'Only covers BV and NV companies in the free open dataset', and differentiates from siblings like 'lookup_company_finances' by focusing on basic company data rather than financial information.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for Dutch companies with KVK numbers, specifically BV/NV types in the free dataset. It implicitly suggests alternatives for other company types or datasets, but doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or direct alternatives like 'get_organization'.

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