Search Albert Heijn Products

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what the result set contains and that results are cached for up to 30 minutes (staleness expectations). It stops short of describing result-count/pagination behavior or failure modes, so not a full 5.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, return payload second, caching caveat last. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise lack; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 read-only, fully schema-documented search tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, return contents and cache TTL, which is essentially everything needed to call it correctly. Minor gap: nothing about paginating through results or how many matches are typically returned.

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 five parameters (query, page, limit, sort, bonus_only) are already documented in the schema with defaults and enum meanings. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (search the Albert Heijn grocery catalog by keyword) and enumerates what comes back (prices, bonus discounts, unit prices, links). It is implicitly separable from siblings like ah_search_recipes, ah_search_stores and ah_get_product, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 wording implies keyword search as the entry point, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to ah_get_products_bulk or ah_get_bonus_offers (which would be the natural alternative when bonus_only=true is desired). Usage is only inferable.

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