agb_lookup_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: unknown parents are input errors, unmatched queries return an empty results list, and each kwalificatie includes its parent_code. It stops short of stating read-only/permission/rate-limit traits, but for a lookup tool it adds substantive error and output semantics beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded and every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then parameter-combination rules, then output/error behavior. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and contains no filler.

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 a low-complexity lookup with an output schema and 100% schema description coverage, the description supplies the missing usage and error context. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly, and return-value details are properly handled by the output schema.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical combinatorial semantics not present in the schema: default lists zorgsoorten, zorgsoort lists its kwalificaties, query alone searches both levels, and both together search kwalificaties under that zorgsoort. This fully specifies how the optional parameters interact for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb (Discover) and resource (zorgsoort and kwalificatie filter codes and labels), and its combinatorial behavior makes it clearly distinct from the sibling search/get-record tools. An agent can identify this as a reference-code lookup rather than a record search without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for each parameter combination (no filters, zorgsoort alone, query alone, both together), which is strong operational guidance. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling tools (e.g., agb_search_zorgverleners), so the 'vs alternatives' aspect is absent; clear context but no exclusions.

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