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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that — the exact discount threshold, the 30-day comparison window, and the fact that only own measurements are used rather than retailer marketing prices. It stops short of disclosing result ordering, volume or refresh frequency.

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 front-loaded sentences that define the metric before the caveat; almost no waste. The parenthetical category list is slightly padded but reinforces scope.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter query with no output schema, the definition supplies the essential domain semantics (threshold, window, sources, exclusions). Only minor gaps remain around result set size and ordering.

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 100% and the single optional 'soort' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's category list (telefoons, tablets, elektronica, huishouden) loosely mirrors the schema examples but adds no matching semantics, such as whether filtering is free-text or category-exact.

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 (products priced ≥10% below their 30-day low), the sources (bol and Coolblue) and the data provenance (NuActueel's own measurements). An agent can distinguish this from sibling price tools like toestelprijs or mobiele_markt, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is clearly a 'current price-deal' lookup, but the description never says when to prefer it over the other price tools or what it excludes. The closing note about shop 'van'-prijzen is a data-quality caveat, not a usage rule.

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