Alle examencentra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the output contents (all exam centers with specific metrics), sorting by exam count, and explicitly excludes the per-center ranking. It does not explicitly mention read-only nature, but given it's a listing tool, the behavior is reasonably 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?

The description is concise, consisting of three short sentences that convey the full purpose without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns, how it is sorted, and what it explicitly excludes (with a pointer to the alternative). It is complete for an agent to know when and how to use it.

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?

The single parameter 'categorie' is described as 'Rijbewijscategorie, standaard B (auto).' which fully explains its meaning and default value. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra info but the schema itself is complete.

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 the tool returns all CBR exam centers with their pass rate, number of exams, and number of driving schools, sorted by exam count. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'examencentrum' which provides per-center rankings.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Zonder de ranglijst per centrum; die haal je met examencentrum', which indicates when not to use this tool and directs to the alternative for ranking per center. This provides clear usage guidance.

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