Albert Heijn: Receipts

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure of returned fields (id, date, total) and the implicit 'recent' scoping. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, how 'recent' is bounded, or whether authentication via ah_login is required, which is a meaningful gap for a listing tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns before the pointer to the detail sibling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be elaborated, and the description is sufficient for a simple one-optional-param list tool. The only omission is any mention of auth prerequisites given the presence of ah_login/ah_logout siblings.

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 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional semantics about the limit.

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 ('List recent Albert Heijn in-store receipts'), including the Dutch term kassabonnen, and explicitly distinguishes itself from ah_get_receipt_details by noting that this tool returns only summary fields while the sibling returns items.

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 to ah_get_receipt_details 'with the id to see individual items', which is a clear next-step condition. It stops short of the full 5 because it never clarifies the boundary against ah_get_orders, a sibling an agent could plausibly confuse with receipts.

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