get_dutch_implementations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the exact return payload (BWB-IDs, statute titles, implementation status) and the required format for eu_document_id, offering transparency beyond the simple read-only hint.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information: reverse lookup direction, return fields, forward-lookup alternative, and input format. No redundant content.

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?

For a straightforward read-only lookup with three parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns and provides the essential input format. The boolean parameters are adequately explained in the schema, so no further detail is required here.

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?

Although the schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), the tool description adds crucial format guidance for eu_document_id ('directive:YYYY/NNN' or 'regulation:YYYY/NNN', with an example). This goes beyond the schema's generic description, justifying a score above the baseline 3.

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 opens with 'Reverse EU lookup' and clearly states the function: find Dutch statutes implementing a given EU directive or regulation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_eu_basis by explicitly labeling the direction of lookup.

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 explicitly tells the user to use get_eu_basis for the forward lookup (Dutch law → EU basis), providing a clear alternative. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus a known sibling.

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