cvdr_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: it uses KOOP SRU, matches against the 'keyword' index, and returns specific fields and a link. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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, consisting of four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes essential details about return fields and input constraints.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits explanations for pagination parameters (top, limit, offset), output formats, and debugging options. Users lack enough context to use the tool effectively beyond a basic query.

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 14%. The description adds value for the 'query' parameter by reinforcing that only topic keywords should be passed. However, it does not explain other parameters (top, limit, offset, dryRun, verbose, outputFormat), leaving them undocumented in both schema and description.

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 decentralised/local regulations (CVDR) via KOOP SRU, listing specific return fields. It specifies the scope (municipal, provincial, water-authority bylaws) and the required input type (topic keywords), distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other Dutch government data.

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 instructs to 'Pass topic keywords only,' providing clear usage context. It implies when to use this tool (for CVDR regulations) versus other sibling tools for different Dutch legal documents, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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