Get Response Cache Statistics

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds real value by disclosing the report contents (hits, misses, hit rate, stored entries, evictions), which substitutes for the missing output schema. Minor gap: it does not say the cache is in-process per session or that stats cannot be reset.

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 sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the reported metrics, the second supplies the purpose. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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, listing the reported fields is the right compensation and covers most of what an agent needs. It could be slightly more complete by noting the stats are session-scoped and read-only with no reset.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds no misleading parameter language.

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 ("Report the in-process response cache") and enumerates the exact metrics returned: enabled state, hits, misses, hit rate, entries, evictions. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all Albert Heijn data-retrieval 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?

Gives an explicit use case: verify that cached AH responses are reused instead of re-fetched, i.e. a diagnostic/verification tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to call it (e.g. it is not a cache-clearing tool), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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