getapi_property_pandgegevens-lite

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 reveals only that this is a GET lookup returning 'property data'; nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior on invalid postcodes, or how the lite response differs from the full version.

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 compact line, but a large part of it is a restatement of the name plus a URL path already implied by the tool name. There is no substance beyond the label.

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 lookup with 4 params (2 untyped), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies almost nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or interpret the result.

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 mentions no parameters at all. Two of the four properties (house_letter, house_number_addition) are untyped in the schema with no description compensation, and the postcode pattern is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Lightweight property data lookup') and the Dutch domain term (pandgegevens). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'getapi_property_pandgegevens' – the word 'lightweight' hints at a difference but never articulates what fields or cost the lite variant omits.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The presence of a full 'pandgegevens' sibling makes the missing guidance especially costly – an agent cannot tell which to pick.

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