Rijbewijscategorieën

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It states what the tool lists and that codes are used as parameters, but it does not specify the response format (e.g., array of objects) or any potential limitations. This is sufficient for a simple enumeration tool but lacks detail about behavior.

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 concise sentence that conveys all essential information without extraneous details. It is well-structured, presenting the purpose first and then the usage instruction. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for its context. It explains what the tool provides and how it relates to other tools. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from understanding or using the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. According to the rubric, with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3 even without parameter-specific info in the description. The description does not need to add anything here.

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 identifies the resource (driving license categories) and the scope (categories for which CBR publishes scores per driving school). It also explains that each category includes what the exam measures, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so it is slightly less direct.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by instructing to use the code as a parameter in other tools, which directly connects this tool to its siblings. It implies that this tool is the reference for obtaining category codes before using other tools. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the instruction is clear enough for practical use.

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