lijst

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It documents filtering semantics such as case-insensitive text search, category filtering, and a max-results upper bound, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, filter combination behavior, or pagination, leaving moderate gaps.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block, with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the main purpose and keeps each parameter explanation short and directly useful.

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 four-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough operational context: required code source, optional filters, and result cap. The main gap is the lack of when-to-use guidance, already penalized under usage guidelines, and the list of valid codes is only illustrative.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters with concrete meaning and examples. `code` is linked to `bronnen`, `zoek` specifies searchable fields and case-insensitivity, `categorie` gives value examples, and `max_resultaten` is defined as an upper bound.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool returns the contents of one authoritative species list and names concrete lists (Soortenbesluit, HRL-bijlagen, Rode Lijst, Unielijst). This makes resource and scope clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as zoek_soort or soort_status, so differentiation is mostly inferred.

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 tells the agent that `code` comes from `bronnen` and gives example codes, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives for searching species or checking statuses, so selection guidance is absent.

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