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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that the data is daily measurements and that it returns min/max/median plus a verdict on whether a 'korting' is genuine. It does not mention rate limits, latency or data-freshness, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool computes and followed by the parameter-sourcing instruction. Every clause carries information; the parentheticals compactly convey data granularity and ID provenance.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the statistics returned and the discount verdict. It omits any mention of the dagen window and the shape of the response, which is the only notable gap for a read-only analytics tool.

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 75% (markt, product_id and product_key are documented; dagen is not), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining where each ID comes from and that product_id and product_key are interchangeable keys, though it never mentions the dagen parameter, leaving one gap.

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?

States a specific resource and scope ('Prijsverloop van een product (dagmetingen)') and even summarizes the computed output (laagste/hoogste/mediaan, korting-echtheid). It names sibling tools only as ID sources rather than as alternatives, so it does not fully differentiate itself from the other price/sales siblings, keeping it short of a 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?

Makes the prerequisite explicit: you must first obtain product_id or product_key from zoek_producten, beste_in_categorie or product_oordeel, and states the two are alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing is given, so no exclusions.

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