getapi_kadaster_bag_id

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. It implies a read-only lookup via the 'lookup' verb and GET path, but discloses nothing about return shape, error behavior on an unknown/invalid ID, or whether data is cached or rate-limited.

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 with the resource named first, plus the endpoint annotation. No filler, though the endpoint suffix is arguably redundant with the tool name.

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 trivial one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the minimum is arguably met. But with zero annotations and zero param descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without return-value expectations or sibling routing, which is a real gap.

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%, but the schema's pattern (^[0-9]{16}$) carries the format. The description does add real meaning by identifying the id as a 'nummeraanduiding ID', which the bare schema does not say; it stops short of explaining the identifier's origin or valid sourcing.

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+resource ('Address lookup') and the key type ('nummeraanduiding ID'), which distinguishes it from the string-based getapi_kadaster_bag_address sibling. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 closely related getapi_kadaster_bag_address / getapi_kadaster_bag_address-suggest siblings. An agent must guess which lookup variant fits the input it holds.

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