Rijscholen zoeken

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

The description discloses important behaviors such as typo tolerance ('verdraagt een typefout'), dynamic default sorting, and the fact that it returns a brief overview. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it does so adequately, though it does not mention pagination or result size limits beyond the 'limiet' parameter.

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 one well-structured sentence and a brief note about usage. It conveys the core functionality and important nuances without redundancy, making it 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by stating it returns a brief overview, which implies a list of results. It does not specify exact output fields, but that omission is acceptable for a search tool when a sibling tool provides detailed information for a single school.

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 parameters have schema descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: e.g., 'zoekterm' explains typo tolerance, 'sorteer' explains default behavior, and 'minimum_examens' explains the implicit default. This helps the agent use parameters effectively.

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 function: searching driving schools using free text, city, province, or service area, with various filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that 'rijschool' should be used for full details of a single school, and the general search nature contrasts with 'rijscholen_in_de_buurt'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'rijschool' tool, and it explains the behavior of key filters (e.g., sorting defaults, minimum examens default). This helps an agent choose the right tool and use filters correctly.

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