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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: a hard cap of five products, that the historical range is NuActueel's own observations since the first measurement (no fake list price), and a 30-day lookback. It does not cover empty-result behaviour or data freshness/cadence.

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 verb and scope are front-loaded, but everything is packed into one long run-on sentence with a dense parenthetical list of returned fields. It reads as a data dump rather than a structured brief; a short second sentence separating the return payload from the query modes would improve it.

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 thoroughly, including the five-result limit and the alternate category-overview response. Minor gaps remain on currency, empty results, and price freshness, but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 parameter is already documented, so the baseline is a 3. The description does add value by clarifying that a category term changes the response shape (overview with from-price, median, three cheapest), which the schema does not convey.

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 names a concrete verb ('Zoek') and resource (product price), and enumerates exactly what is returned: current price at Coolblue/bol/Teufel, historical min/max, 30-day price, and a product link. It is unambiguous about the resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as toestelprijs or prijsbeweging_producten.

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?

It explains two query modes (product name/EAN versus a category term like 'airfryers' which yields an overview), which is useful usage guidance. However, it never says when not to use it or which sibling tool to pick instead, so routing to overlapping price tools is left to inference.

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