data_politie_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining the dimension exploration mode, which is a non-obvious behavior. No contradictions. The description is consistent with the 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 extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the purpose and data source. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects (main filters and dimension mode) but lacks details on pagination, output formats, and error behavior. It is adequate for basic usage but could be more complete.

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 50%, so the description partially compensates by grouping the main filter parameters (region, crime type, period) and explaining the dimension parameter. However, it does not add detailed semantics for parameters like top, limit, offset, or outputFormat, which remain only in the schema.

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 registered crime statistics from a specific data source, and specifies the filtering by region, crime type, and period. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact data source and scope.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (searching crime statistics with filters) and mentions an alternative mode (exploring dimension values). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives among sibling tools.

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