geocodeer_adres

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that an external Digitaal Vlaanderen geolocation service is used and that output includes coordinates and municipality, but it does not mention potential failure modes, coverage limits, or whether network/auth requirements exist.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and source are in the first line, followed by a minimal parameter example block. No unnecessary filler is present.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to document return fields in detail. It covers input scope, accepted input forms, and output type well enough for a simple one-parameter geocoding 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 0%, so the description must clarify the 'adres' parameter. It does so with two concrete examples covering both a full address and a place name, which is sufficient for a single free-form string parameter.

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 defines a geocoding transformation from an address or place name in Flanders/Brussels to WGS84 coordinates and municipality, and it names the underlying service (Digitaal Vlaanderen, geolocation v4). This is specific enough to distinguish it from all listed sibling tools, which are biodiversity-data related.

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 intended use is clear: provide an address or place name in Flanders/Brussels. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the scope is well delimited and the siblings are unrelated, so the context is sufficient.

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