Eén verkeersbord

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

The description provides no information about side effects, read-only status, or any behavioral traits. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to disclose anything about safety or state changes, leaving the agent with no insight into potential consequences.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Alles over één verkeersbord') and then enumerates the covered topics in a clear, concise list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while efficiently communicating the tool's scope.

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 description covers the scope of information provided (meaning, actions, location, etc.), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect from the tool. It does not mention the output format, but given the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable and does not leave major gaps in understanding.

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 includes a description for the parameter 'code' with examples ('B6', 'A1', 'j37'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further clarification about the parameter format, constraints, or how to obtain a valid code, relying entirely on the schema.

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 provides comprehensive information about a single traffic sign, enumerating specific aspects such as meaning, actions, location, common mistakes, confusions, placement regulations, and legal articles. It explicitly says 'één verkeersbord' (one traffic sign), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'verkeersborden' that likely lists multiple signs.

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 retrieving detailed information about a specific sign, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'verkeersborden' or 'zoek'. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the context to be inferred rather than clearly guided.

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