Zoeken in de theorie

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that each hit provides a fragment and a key, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior on empty results, rate limits, or whether it is strictly read-only. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: the first states the action and scope, the second explains the output and gives a usage hint. Every word contributes, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 essential behavior: it searches all content types, returns fragments and keys, and provides a usage hint. The schema handles parameters, and no output schema is present, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation, though it could mention how the returned key is used.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions and an example for 'vraag' and a default for 'limiet'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 across all theory content (chapters, sections, traffic signs, concepts, practice questions). It explicitly mentions the output format (fragment and key) and provides a usage hint that differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are specific retrieval tools.

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 gives a clear usage condition: 'Start here if you don't know in which chapter something is.' This implies using this tool for general search and hints at alternatives, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use this. It is clear but not fully explicit.

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