Examencijfers over tijd

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the data is not official CBR history but constructed from weekly measurements, that the series starts at the first measurement, and that scores are weighted by the number of exams per location. It does not mention side effects, but this is a read-only retrieval, and the provenance and weighting are transparent.

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, no redundant phrases, well-structured. It efficiently communicates the core function, data source, and weighting without extraneous detail.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the format of the time series (e.g., list of points, date range, sorting) or any pagination/limitations. It gives a high-level understanding but lacks operational details needed for a developer to fully anticipate the response. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not complete.

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 descriptions for both parameters (school_id and categorie) are complete. The tool description adds that the data is for one school and weighted by location, which provides context but does not specifically clarify parameter behavior beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it provides a time series of CBR exam scores for a single driving school, explains the data provenance (weekly measurements by Ribba), and clarifies weighting by exam count per location, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like school_cijfers or landelijke_cijfers. The description notes that the series starts at the first measurement, which implicitly hints at historical analysis, but does not state usage conditions or exclusions.

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