Ranglijst rijscholen

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

The description mentions no side effects, permissions, or data limits. As a query tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but falls short of full transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and filtering criteria. It is well-structured with no unnecessary words.

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 tool is simple and the description covers the core functionality, but it does not specify the output format (e.g., a list of schools with percentages). Given the low complexity and clear purpose, this minor omission does not significantly hinder understanding, but a brief mention of output would make it 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?

The schema provides clear descriptions with examples and defaults for all four parameters (stad, limiet, provincie, minimum_examens). The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema already covers, so a baseline score 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 the tool returns driving schools with the highest pass percentage, optionally filtered by city or province, and only those with sufficient exams. It distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing specifically on ranking lists.

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 ranking queries but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like school_cijfers or cijfers_per_gebied. No explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance is provided.

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