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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes useful output context (price per 100 g/serving, SupplementScore, current discount code), but says nothing about result limits, pagination, auth or empty-result behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the output value proposition appended. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical makes it slightly harder to parse.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set, the description covers the purpose and return contents but leaves key gaps: no differentiation from search_catalog, no behavior for missing or empty queries, and no note on result size. Adequate but not sufficient for confident selection.

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 only 33%: only markt is documented in the schema, while zoekterm and max_prijs are bare. The description alludes to 'de gekozen markt' but does not explain what zoekterm accepts (name, brand, ingredient?) or how max_prijs filters, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 verb (zoek) and resource (supplementen) plus a notable scope qualifier: coverage across all shops in the chosen market, including non-Shopify. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_catalog, leaving the agent to guess which search tool applies.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as search_catalog, lookup_catalog, beste_in_categorie, or product_oordeel. The 'ook niet-Shopify' phrase hints at breadth of coverage but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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