datarapport_natuur

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the fixed template structure, the two search radii and their rationale, the map behavior (including the bwk_kaart option), the licensing nuance (ook_niet_commercieel default and when to set False), and even linguistic constraints ('nooit van zwaar of zwaarst beschermd'). It also instructs to base the summary only on the response. This is thorough and transparent.

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and usage triggers, then explains the template, search radii, maps, post-action summary, and finally the parameters. There is no redundancy or filler; the Args list is clear and matches the schema properties.

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?

With 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters, the full behavior (template, maps, licensing), and the post-action requirements. It even addresses edge cases like sharing vs. internal use (ook_niet_commercieel) and language precision. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so with an Args section that explains every parameter: adres (with fallback to lat/lon), pad (with default path), straal_soorten_m and straal_gebieden_m (with defaults and rationale), jaar_van/jaar_tot, kaarten, bwk_kaart, detail_soorten, bewaar_kaarten, and ook_niet_commercieel (with licensing meaning). This adds meaning far beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Maak in één stap het vaste DATARAPPORT NATUUR als PDF voor een projectlocatie.' It also names the exact user triggers ('datarapport, natuurrapport, bronnenscan of "rapport zoals het vorige"'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that handle individual queries like zoek_soort or waarnemingen. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Gebruik deze tool wanneer de gebruiker om een datarapport, natuurrapport, bronnenscan of "rapport zoals het vorige" vraagt.' It also provides post-action guidance on how to summarize results and which terminology to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for other cases, so it's slightly short of a 5.

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