zoek_productenZoek supplementen over alle shops in de gekozen markt (ook niet-Shopify) met prijs per 100 g/portie, SupplementScore en actuele kortingscode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markt | No | Markt/land voor prijzen, links en codes (standaard nl). | nl |
| zoekterm | Yes | ||
| max_prijs | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description needs only to add scope and output behavior. It does so by specifying coverage of all shops including non-Shopify and by naming the returned data: price per 100 g/serving, SupplementScore, and current discount code. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and key output fields with no filler. Every clause contributes useful information, and the parenthetical '(ook niet-Shopify)' adds a meaningful differentiator without extra length.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields, which is helpful. However, it leaves max_prijs semantically unexplained and gives no guidance on result ordering, limits, or how to choose among siblings. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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%, with only markt having a description. The description does not clarify zoekterm or max_prijs; max_prijs is especially under-specified because it is never mentioned in the description, even though it is a number parameter whose filtering behavior is not obvious from the schema alone.
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 uses the specific verb 'Zoek' with the resource 'supplementen' and clearly defines the scope: all shops in the selected market, including non-Shopify. It also lists the key result features (price per 100 g/serving, SupplementScore, current discount code), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from narrower sibling tools.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool — whenever the user wants to search supplements across a market — but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like beste_in_categorie, prijs_historie, or week_deals are not referenced, so the agent must infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct concerns: current sales, expected sales, weekly deals, price history, product reviews, discount codes, and search are clearly separable. The main risk is that actuele_sales, verwachte_sales, and week_deals all deal with 'sales/deals', but their temporal and channel scopes are explicit enough to prevent serious misselection.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are Dutch descriptive phrases, which gives a coherent feel. The pattern is not strictly verb_noun because most names are noun phrases like product_oordeel and prijs_historie, with zoek_producten as the only verb-led exception, so the set is consistent but not perfectly uniform.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range for a supplement deals/reviews domain. Each tool covers a distinct information need without obvious redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the full user journey for supplement research: searching products, checking current deals, anticipating future sales, validating discounts with price history, retrieving discount codes, reading quality scores, and understanding the scoring methodology. No significant operational gap is apparent for the stated domain.