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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context about the return payload (price in cents, seller, per-variant discount codes, attribution, partner_url, permalink), but with an output schema present this is largely restating structure rather than disclosing behavior like pagination limits or ranking.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slight density from the enumeration of output fields, but it stays short and readable.

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 an output schema, so enumerating return fields is not strictly needed, while the genuinely missing piece — how to choose between this and zoek_producten/lookup_catalog — is absent. For a zero-required-param search tool with nested filters, this is minimally viable but leaves the main routing decision to the agent.

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 67%, so most parameters already carry their own documentation (markt values, filters, pagination limits, attribution map). The description only echoes 'prijs in centen' and does not clarify markt/context precedence or cursor behaviour beyond what the schema states. Adequate baseline, no added value.

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 verb and resource ('Zoek supplementen in UCP-vorm') and names output contents (prijs in centen, verkoper, discounts.codes). It references sibling zoek_producten only to say it is 'dezelfde bron', which does not actually differentiate the two tools — an agent still cannot tell when this one is preferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The single sentence 'Dezelfde bron als zoek_producten' creates ambiguity rather than resolving it, since the two siblings should presumably be selected under different conditions but nothing indicates which.

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