Rijscholen in de buurt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output includes distance and the purpose, but it does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, or what happens if no results are found. This is acceptable but not fully 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 two clear sentences. The first sentence states the function, and the second provides a usage hint. 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's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, the description is sufficient. It covers the core purpose, the type of output, and a relevant usage scenario. The absence of an output schema is not a problem as the description hints at the output structure (distance).

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about coordinates and municipal boundaries, but it does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters like 'straal_km' or 'minimum_examens' beyond what the schema already provides.

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 finds the nearest driving schools to a point and includes the straight-line distance. It also differentiates the tool from potential siblings by mentioning use with coordinates and when municipal boundaries are not the relevant scope.

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 gives usage conditions: use when you have coordinates and no place name, or when the municipal boundary isn't the relevant boundary. This provides clear guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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