bron_ongevallen_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 detail about the specific data returned (severity, crash type, vehicle types, coordinates), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the core function, and includes keywords for searchability. Every sentence contributes.

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 broad purpose and return types but omits details on pagination, debug parameters (dryRun, verbose), and result format nuances. It is adequate but not 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 only 45%, and the description does not add meaningful detail for most parameters beyond what is in the schema. It mentions bbox and the return structure but does not clarify parameters like top, limit, offset, dryRun, verbose, or outputFormat. The description should compensate for low coverage but does not.

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 it searches Dutch road traffic accidents via WFS GetFeature within a bbox, specifying return fields (severity, crash type, vehicle types, location, coordinates). It stands out from sibling tools like bag_address_detail or data_politie_search by being uniquely about accidents.

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 emphasizes the required bbox and that searching the full dataset is not allowed, giving a clear usage constraint. It does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives, but the bbox requirement is a strong guideline.

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