getapi_kadaster_bag_address

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. The bracketed '[GET /v1/kadaster/bag/address]' hints at a read-only GET, but nothing states auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what the response contains (no output schema exists).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and its key inputs, with the endpoint in a compact bracket. Efficient, though the path bracket is somewhat redundant for an agent.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across 4 parameters, a single sentence is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what the return payload looks like, how optional parameters narrow results, or how this differs from the suggest/id siblings.

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 schema itself is bare (house_letter and house_number_addition have no type at all). The description names only the two required inputs and says nothing about the optional house letter/addition parameters that refine an address match, so half the parameters remain undocumented.

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 and resource ('Address lookup') and names the two key inputs (postcode, house number), so the operation is immediately clear. It does not, however, distinguish this exact lookup from the closely-related sibling getapi_kadaster_bag_address-suggest (autocomplete) or getapi_kadaster_bag_id, leaving overlap unresolved.

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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than the sibling suggest endpoint or the id endpoint, nor any note on prerequisites or exclusivity. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the two named parameters.

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