Eén examencentrum

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, read-only behavior, output format, or error conditions. While this is likely a safe query operation, the description does not disclose these aspects, placing full burden on itself and failing to convey behavioral expectations beyond the core purpose.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core scope and then enumerates the distinct data categories. It is concise, free of redundancy, and easy to parse quickly.

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 lists all major return categories (address, parking, pass rates, origin cities, ranking), giving the agent a solid expectation of the output. However, it omits details about the output structure, pagination, or any limitations. Given no output schema exists, this is a minor gap but not a critical one.

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 description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the input schema descriptions are comprehensive (100% coverage), including defaults, examples, and constraints. As per the baseline, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate when the description does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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's scope: 'Alles over één CBR-examencentrum' and enumerates specific data categories (address, parking, pass rates for first and retry exams, origin cities, and ranking). This makes it immediately obvious what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover multiple centers or aggregate statistics.

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 implies usage for a single exam center ('één CBR-examencentrum') and lists the information returned, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'examencentra' or 'landelijke_cijfers'. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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