brk_kadastrale_kaart_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minor behavioral context (bbox-driven, performance advice) but does not cover rate limits, authentication, or other traits. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be more structured, e.g., separating input constraints or listing output details more clearly. Still, it is efficient and informative.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key parameters (bbox, collectie, geometry) but lacks details on pagination, output formats beyond JSON/GeoJSON, and error handling. It is adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is low (33%). The description adds meaning for 'collectie' (lists collections) and 'bbox' (EPSG:28992, keep small) but fails to describe other parameters like 'top', 'limit', 'offset', 'outputFormat', etc. Given low coverage, description should compensate but does so only partially.

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 searches Dutch cadastral parcels and map objects via PDOK OGC API, specifying it is bbox-driven, lists collections, and describes return fields. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling 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 provides context for usage ('bbox-driven', 'keep it small') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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