get_verblijfsobject_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context about search modes and filtering precision, but it does not disclose potential behavior such as multiple matches, no-match handling, or whether the result is unique. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—four short lines—and front-loads the purpose. Each sentence serves a clear function: stating the outcome, giving the two search modes, and noting optional filters. There is no repetition or wasted text.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and 100% schema description coverage, so the description need not explain return values. It adequately explains how to invoke the tool via the two search modes and optional filters. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit guidance about when to prefer the sibling tool, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the valid parameter combinations (postal_code+house_number vs street+house_number+city) and clarifying that house_letter and house_suffix are precision-enhancing filters. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions and helps the agent choose the right parameters.

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 opens with 'Get verblijfsobject ID using address,' which states a specific verb, resource, and purpose. It clearly distinguishes the tool from its only sibling, get_monumental_status, since that tool concerns monumental status rather than ID lookup. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 provides clear usage instructions by specifying two valid search modes: postal_code + house_number OR street + house_number + city. It also notes that house_letter and house_suffix are additional filters for 'more precise matching.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool or state when not to use this tool, leaving that to inference.

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