getapi_rdw_vehicle

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 beyond the endpoint path. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior for invalid/unknown plates, or what the 'extended response' actually contains.

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 dense line with the resource front-loaded, followed by the variant tag and endpoint path. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed path is mildly 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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is minimal but borderline adequate. It omits what the extended response returns and how failures surface, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent that has to 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%, but the schema itself constrains the value (pattern, 4-9 chars, alphanumerics with dashes/spaces). The description adds the crucial semantic that the string is a Dutch kenteken (license plate), which meaningfully clarifies the parameter, though it adds no format or normalization guidance.

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 ('Vehicle lookup by Dutch license plate (kenteken)') and flags the 'Pro / extended response' variant, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling getapi_rdw_vehicle-lite. The sibling contrast is suggested rather than named outright, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only a faint hint of when to use it ('Pro / extended response'), with no explicit condition such as 'use this when you need full vehicle data; use rdw_vehicle-lite for basic lookups'. An agent must infer the choice entirely from the adjective 'Pro'.

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