Examencijfers van één rijschool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, or what happens if multiple schools match a name. The description gives no details about return format or limits.

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, with no redundant details. It front-loads the main purpose and then briefly explains lookup options, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

For a simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main data points. It does not explicitly state that at least one parameter is required or describe the output structure, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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?

All three parameters have meaningful descriptions that go beyond their names: 'naam' is described as the fallback when ID is unknown, 'stad' is for disambiguation, and 'school_id' is identified as a Ribba ID. However, the interaction between parameters (e.g., precedence if both name and ID are provided) is not addressed.

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 that the tool returns exam scores for one driving school, including first exams, re-exams, averages per exam center, and a breakdown by center. It also specifies that lookup is by ID or name, 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?

The description explains how to search (by ID or name) but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over its siblings (e.g., landelijke_cijfers, cijfers_per_gebied). The scope 'één rijschool' implies a single school, but no direct comparison or conditions are given.

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