bro_ondergrond_search

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions the tool accesses public REST services, returns location in two coordinate systems (WGS84 and RD), quality regime, and registration metadata. This gives the agent a clearer picture of the output. Annotations already declare it read-only and open-world.

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 paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and core usage patterns. No redundant or filler content. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return format for the direct object lookup (location, quality regime, metadata) but is vague about the search mode output (reference-code domains). With seven parameters, only the query parameter is explained in context, leaving gaps for the others.

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?

With only 14% schema coverage, the description explains the query parameter's two valid forms (object ID or keyword) but does not mention the other six parameters (top, limit, offset, dryRun, verbose, outputFormat). Their defaults and constraints are in the schema, but the description adds little beyond the query parameter.

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 queries the Dutch BRO subsurface register and specifies two distinct use cases: fetching a single object by ID and searching reference-code domains by keyword. Examples of IDs and keywords are provided, distinguishing it from the many sibling tools that cover other Dutch government data sources.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison with sibling tools or guidance on which mode to choose based on user need.

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