pdok_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not cover those. However, it adds no additional behavioral details such as rate limits, pagination, or response format, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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: two short sentences that immediately state the action and provide examples. No wasted words.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description fails to mention expected return values or result structure. While the openWorldHint implies flexibility, additional completeness would help agents understand what to expect from the response.

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?

The description adds examples to the 'query' parameter (e.g., 'Damrak 1 Amsterdam') beyond the schema, but does not mention the 'rows' parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but could be improved.

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 the PDOK Locatieserver for Dutch addresses and locations with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on general address/location search rather than specific datasets.

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 basic usage guidance ('Use specific address strings or place names') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative sibling tools like bag_address_detail or bag_lookup_address.

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