Albert Heijn: Create Favourite List

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the list starts empty, AH normalizes the name by dropping some punctuation such as '-', and the call returns an id. That punctuation-drop warning is exactly the kind of non-obvious side effect annotations can't convey. It doesn't mention idempotency or duplicate-name handling.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and the 'empty' qualifier, then the normalization caveat, then the sibling hand-off. No wasted clauses.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes that the id is returned and tells the agent how to populate the list. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is 100% (one param, with example names), so baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by warning that punctuation may be stripped from the provided name, which affects what the agent should expect in the stored name.

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 ('Create a new, empty Albert Heijn favorite list') and the key qualifier 'empty', which distinguishes it from ah_add_to_favorite_list and ah_get_favorite_lists. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 routes the follow-up step: 'add products with ah_add_to_favorite_list', which names the sibling and the natural next action. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g. when to favor this over reusing an existing list), so it falls short of a full 5.

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