Get Jumbo Statiegeld Summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that it aggregates across store receipts and reports total returned, total charged, net balance, and per-receipt breakdown.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted wording. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the reported outputs follow immediately.

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 aggregation tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely complete and even lists the return metrics in the absence of an output schema. It could be stronger by clarifying how year and start_date/end_date interact if both are provided, but no critical information is missing.

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 four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the date-range versus calendar-year usage but does not add syntax or precedence details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: calculate returned and charged statiegeld across store receipts over a date range or calendar year, and it names the reported metrics. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as jumbo_get_deposits.

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 by specifying a date range or calendar year, which gives useful context. However, it does not say when not to use it or name an alternative such as jumbo_get_deposits, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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