ruimtelijke_plannen_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by naming the backend (PDOK WMS GetFeatureInfo) and clarifying it is discovery-only with no legal text extraction, providing useful operational insight beyond 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 three sentences, front-loading the key action and source, listing output fields, and stating limitations. Every sentence serves a purpose with 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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and limitation but lacks details on parameter interactions (e.g., bbox vs gemeente) or typical usage patterns. Adequate for a simple discovery tool but not fully 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?

With schema description coverage at 80%, the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description adds marginal value by summarizing output fields but does not explain parameter interactions or usage specifics beyond what the schema provides.

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 Ruimtelijkeplannen.nl (Wro/Bro plans) via PDOK WMS GetFeatureInfo, returns specific fields, and is discovery-only. It distinguishes from potential text-extraction siblings by explicitly noting no juridische tekst extraction.

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 implies usage for discovery and not for extracting legal text, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It provides a general hint about scope but lacks specific guidance on when to prefer this over sibling search tools.

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