bestuurlijke_gebieden_search

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting that geometry can be large ('large for gemeente/provincie polygons'), which helps set expectations. It also specifies the return fields and optional geometry. No contradictions with 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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, the second lists filters and returns. It is front-loaded and free of superfluous text.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but lacks details on pagination, output formats, error handling, and many parameters. It is adequate for a search tool but could be more comprehensive.

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 description explains the key parameters (naam, code, bbox, includeGeometry) and the administrative level (niveau). However, with 45% schema description coverage, many parameters (top, limit, offset, dryRun, verbose, outputFormat) are not described, leaving gaps. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 specifically states 'Search Dutch administrative areas (gemeente/provincie/land) via PDOK Bestuurlijke Gebieden OGC API Features', clearly indicating the tool's purpose, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on addresses, buildings, or other domains.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (searching Dutch administrative areas) and mentions filter options (naam, code, bbox). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of the domain implicitly guides usage.

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