details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the call is expensive against Superbuy's rate limit and that it exposes 'lokprijzen' (bait prices) hidden at search level. Missing are auth/permission requirements and any indication of response size or latency, which are relevant for a heavy call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then id provenance, then the rate-limit warning last, which is a sensible ordering. The middle clause is dense with comma-separated return fields but each item adds meaning; no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still prioritizes the fields that matter for comparison shopping. The rate-limit constraint and id provenance are both covered; permission requirements and error behavior are the only notable 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 coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying the id comes from search() and follows the 'tb:123' pattern. That is enough to construct a valid call, though nothing is said about invalid-id behavior.

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 and resource ('Productdetails van een item'), names the source tool (search()), gives the id format ('tb:123'), and enumerates what is returned (variants, shipping, stock, store scores, warnings), which cleanly separates it from the sibling search tool.

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?

Explicitly constrains usage — 'alleen voor serieuze kandidaten gebruiken' — because of the rate-limit cost, which is actionable selection guidance. It does not positively name alternatives or spell out a full decision tree, but the when-not condition is unambiguous.

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