CBS Netherlands Table Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it's a read-only operation from opendata.cbs.nl, with no auth and unlimited free access, and it details the return fields. This goes beyond annotations to clarify the data source and licensing.

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: it states the action, the return payload, the prerequisite workflow, and the source/licensing in three sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter metadata tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns, how to obtain the identifier, and the access terms. An output schema exists to define the return structure, so the description is complete.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of table_id, and the description reinforces it with an example ('83583NED') and the workflow that it comes from catalog_search. This adds practical context beyond the schema, though the schema already explains it well.

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 states the tool retrieves metadata for a specific CBS table by identifier, and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, time period, frequency, etc.). It differentiates from catalog_search (which discovers identifiers) and other siblings by focusing on metadata retrieval.

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 explicitly instructs to use catalog_search first to discover table identifiers, providing a clear workflow. It also implies this tool is for metadata, not data access, and notes the source and access conditions, effectively guiding when to use it.

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