search_uitspraken_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Open Data has no free-text matching, so non-ECLI terms fall back to facet-only results.' This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent anticipate fallback behavior. It doesn't detail rate limits or return format, but provides the most important caveat.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, ECLI nuance, and when-to-use guidance. No filler.

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 bulk lookup tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the limitation about free-text matching, and the relationship to sibling tools. It also implies return value (summaries). A small gap is the lack of explanation of 'facet-only results,' but overall it's adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that terms should be ECLIs and 'phrased differently,' which goes beyond the schema's min/max constraints. This raises it slightly.

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 description uses specific verbs ('Run several Open Data lookups at once', 'Pass ECLIs to resolve a batch') and clearly identifies the resource (Open Data lookups, decisions' summaries). It also distinguishes from siblings by directing users to get_uitspraken_bulk when ECLIs are already available and get_uitspraak for narrowing down.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'prefer get_uitspraken_bulk when you already have the ECLIs' and 'Use to cast a broad net before narrowing down via get_uitspraak.' It also warns about Open Data's lack of free-text matching, providing context for when the tool is appropriate.

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