Albert Heijn: Receipt Details

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered, but the description adds substantive content: the returned payload (items with name, quantity, unit price, line total, discounts, payment method) and the prerequisite that the id must originate from ah_get_receipts. No mention of auth or error behavior for a missing/invalid id, which keeps it short of a 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 sentences, zero filler: purpose, payload, and prerequisite in that order. The id-source instruction is front-loaded as the final actionable sentence where an agent will read it last before calling.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema and readOnly annotation, the description supplies everything needed: what it fetches, what comes back, and where the id comes from. Nothing required for correct invocation 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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Receipt transaction ID from ah_get_receipts', which the description largely repeats. No added format, example, or validation semantics beyond the schema's own text.

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 ('Get full details of a single ... in-store receipt (kassabon) by its id'), scoped to the in-store receipt domain. This distinguishes it cleanly from ah_get_receipts (the list) and ah_get_order_details (orders, not kassabonnen).

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 agent: 'Get the id from ah_get_receipts first,' which establishes the required call ordering. It does not, however, state when to prefer ah_get_order_details for online orders versus this tool, leaving one sibling boundary to inference.

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