getapi_dso_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: the 'GET' marker at least implies a read-only operation, but there is no word on pagination, result limits, geographic scoping rules, or what happens when no location parameters are supplied.

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?

One short phrase plus an endpoint tag. It is brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — nothing here earns its place beyond the endpoint string, which is arguably metadata rather than description.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies essentially no information an agent needs. Nothing covers parameter meaning, geographic scoping, or return shape.

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 0% and the description names no parameters at all. The four undocumented parameters (lat, lon, postcode, huisnummer) are self-evident in Dutch only if the agent knows the domain; the description adds no meaning, no units/format, and no indication of whether they combine or are alternatives.

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?

States a specific verb ('zoeken') and resource ('Omgevingsdocumenten'), and the bracketed 'GET /v1/dso/documents' pins the endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling getapi_dso_plans, which also appears to deal with DSO documents, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative getapi_dso_plans or any of the location-lookup siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is a location/address-scoped document search.

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