Wetsartikel opzoeken

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it returns literal article text and includes a link, and that omitting the parameter yields a list of regulations. It does not describe error handling, response format, or any limits, but for a read-only lookup tool this is reasonably transparent. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary purpose and the link, and the second clarifies the behavior without a reference. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lookup tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns, the reference to the legal text, and the effect of omitting the parameter. It does not address edge cases or errors, but those are less critical for a read-only lookup. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 documents the parameter 'verwijzing' with examples (e.g., 'RVV 15'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds valuable context by explaining that omitting the parameter changes the output to a list of regulations. This goes beyond the schema and justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 the literal text of an article from specific regulations (RVV 1990, Wegenverkeerswet, etc.) with a link to wetten.overheid.nl. It distinguishes itself from siblings like verkeersbord or begrippen by focusing on articles, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives. The purpose is specific and 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 provides conditional guidance: with a reference you get the article text, without it you get the list of regulations. This clarifies the behavior of the optional parameter but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zoek' or 'verkeersbord'. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the guidance is implicit rather than fully developed.

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