rivm_discovery_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint (safe read) and openWorldHint (results may vary). The description aligns by stating 'Search/discover,' a read operation, and adds behavioral context about topic keywords. No destructive behavior is implied, and no contradictions are present.

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?

Two concise sentences—first states purpose, second provides usage guidance—with no wasted words. The description is well front-loaded and efficiently communicates 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?

For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core use case and input format. It could mention return format or pagination but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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 coverage is 50%: only the query parameter has a description with examples and a 'Do NOT' instruction, adding value beyond the schema. However, the rows parameter (integer with constraints) is not mentioned in the description, leaving it unexplained. The description enhances the query parameter but ignores rows.

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/discover RIVM datasets and API references, specifying the target (Dutch public health institute) and action. It distinguishes from many sibling search tools targeting other domains (e.g., CBS, KNMI), making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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 advises using health/environment topic keywords, provides examples, and explicitly warns against passing full questions. It gives guidance on what to input, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, though the domain-specific focus implicitly differentiates it.

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