getapi_dso_plans

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, yet it discloses almost nothing. The inline '[GET /v1/dso/plans]' implies a read-only search, but there is no mention of pagination, result limits, required auth, or what happens with partial/missing query inputs.

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 definition is a single front-loaded phrase with no filler, which is genuinely concise. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy, so it earns only a middle score.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits parameter meaning, return shape, and invocation guidance. Only the endpoint path adds information beyond the tool name, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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?

Four parameters (lat, lon, postcode, huisnummer) have zero schema description coverage and the description says nothing about them. An agent cannot tell whether these are alternative addressing modes, whether one is required, or what format each expects.

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 clear verb and resource ('Ruimtelijke plannen zoeken' = search spatial plans) plus the concrete endpoint GET /v1/dso/plans, so an agent understands the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from a sibling like getapi_dso_documents, which serves the same DSO domain.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternative tools for spatial-plan vs document lookups. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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