getapi_ndw_emissiezones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The bracketed '[GET /v1/ndw/emissiezones]' at least implies a safe read-only HTTP call, but nothing is said about pagination behavior, result shape, rate limits, or required auth, which matters for a 4-parameter list endpoint.

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 single line is compact and front-loads the resource name, so it is not bloated. But its brevity stems from omission rather than disciplined editing, and the raw endpoint bracket adds little value beyond what the name already conveys.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It gives no indication of filtering semantics, pagination, or response content, so an agent cannot reliably call it without experimentation.

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% across four parameters (city, page, per_page, zone_type), and the description provides no explanation of any of them. The agent must guess what units page/per_page use, how city is matched, and what the zone_type enum values imply.

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 Dutch phrase 'Emissiezones lijst' does convey a verb (list) and resource (emission zones), so an agent can infer the tool returns a list of emission zones. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name (which already contains 'emissiezones') plus the raw HTTP route, and it draws no distinction from siblings like getapi_ndw_laadpunten or getapi_ndw_truckparking.

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, what filters are meaningful, or how it relates to the other NDW endpoints. The agent gets no context for choosing between this and similar list endpoints.

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