refresh_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuinely useful behavioral trait (automatic refresh after 24 hours) and notes that force re-fetches from CBS. It omits side effects such as network calls, permission needs, or whether refreshing blocks, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Front-loaded with the status-check purpose, then the refresh behavior, then the argument description. Every sentence earns its place, though a minor formatting nitpick is embedding a fake Args section inline rather than structuring it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, automatic-refresh policy, and the sole parameter, leaving little an agent needs beyond this to call it 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 coverage is 0%, and the schema entry for 'force' is a bare boolean with default false. The description compensates by explaining what force does ('Haal de catalogus nu opnieuw op bij het CBS'), giving meaning the schema lacks.

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 states specific verbs (show status, refresh) and a specific resource (the local catalog cache), which is clearly distinguishable from the query-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stays below 5.

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 24-hour auto-refresh policy implies when a manual refresh is useful, and 'desgewenst' (if desired) signals optionality. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools, nor any statement of when a refresh is unnecessary.

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