Get Albert Heijn Promo Digest

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses that receipts are paged back to the oldest receipt in the window, capped at 150, meaning results can be incomplete for long histories. It does not mention expected latency for a scan of that size or what the digest's result shape looks like.

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 filler, and the user-facing question is front-loaded before the implementation detail. Every clause earns its place by either scoping intent or disclosing the scan strategy.

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 filtered analysis tool with a fully documented schema and a readOnly annotation, this covers the essentials: what it answers, how it scans, and the 150-receipt ceiling. With no output schema present, a brief note on what the digest returns (offer plus purchase frequency, presumably) would have closed the remaining gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds only loose conceptual mapping ('requested window' for days, 'frequently buy' for min_times) and never mentions the limit parameter or how the 150-receipt cap interacts with days.

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 chain (mines receipts, cross-references against active offers) and the exact user question it answers, which pins the resource to 'frequently bought items currently on Bonus discount'. It is distinguishable from ah_get_bonus_offers and ah_list_receipts by implication, but never names either sibling.

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 quoted question 'of the things I frequently buy, what is on Bonus discount right now?' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative for the plain bonus-offer or receipt-listing cases, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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