getapi_cbs_sbi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about return volume, pagination, hierarchy flattening, or whether level/parent_code constrain the output. For a zero-annotation read tool with two undocumented optional filters, this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is one terse line with no waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading. Adding route information while omitting purpose is a poor use of the little space there is.

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?

A zero-annotation, zero-schema-coverage tool with no output schema leaves the entire specification burden on the description, which provides almost none of it. For a hierarchical index with two filter parameters, this is inadequate.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about 'level' or 'parent_code'. An agent cannot know what values level accepts (e.g., numeric depth, enum) or what parent_code references. The description completely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'SBI code index' restates the tool name and adds only the HTTP route. It identifies the resource (SBI codes, a Dutch business classification index), but the verb/purpose is unclear—is it listing, fetching, or indexing? It does not distinguish itself from getapi_cbs_sbi_search or getapi_cbs_sbi_detail.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The tool does not state whether it's an unfiltered dump/index vs. filtered retrieval, nor does it point to the sibling getapi_cbs_sbi_search for search or getapi_cbs_sbi_detail for detail. The agent must guess which of the three SBI tools to call.

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