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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds real behavioral substance: data comes from NuActueel's own measurements, results are ordered by price only, and products with an unknown attribute are excluded from matching - a caveat that materially affects trust in results. It still says nothing about result limits or how many products are returned.

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?

Purpose and a concrete example are front-loaded in the first clause; the following short sentences each carry a distinct rule (ordering, exclusion, discovery call). Dense but no filler, though the parenthetical example makes the opening sentence long.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover return fields (price, shop, attributes, link), which is the key gap it needed to fill. It is nevertheless silent on result volume/pagination and on how attribute values must be formatted to match, which matters for a nested-object search parameter.

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%, so parameter basics are already documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that all supplied criteria must be certainly satisfied (strict AND semantics) and that missing attribute data disqualifies a product, which changes how an agent should phrase 'kenmerken' values.

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?

Concrete verb+resource: search within a product type on attributes, brand and max price, returning the cheapest matching products. The worked example (28 cm induction frying pan under 50 euro) makes the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as producten_vergelijken or product_info, so it stops 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?

Gives actionable usage context: supply criteria to get matching products, or call without 'kenmerken' to discover which attributes and values a product type supports. It does not state when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. comparing specific products), so no explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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