Albert Heijn: View Shopping List

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared in annotations, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds lifecycle behavior annotations cannot convey (the list is consumed by slot selection and returns only after the order completes). The one omission is any note on auth/prerequisite state, though ah_login siblings make that largely implicit.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then lifecycle, then return shape, then the linking instruction. Every sentence carries actionable information and none restates structured fields.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still tells the agent what the items contain and gives a post-call formatting requirement (link product/recipe names to their url), which is guidance the schema cannot express. The lifecycle caveat closes the main behavioral gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there are no arguments whose semantics need explaining. The description's mention of returned item names/quantities/product IDs is output information, not parameter semantics, so it neither helps nor hurts here.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus the exact resource ('contents of the Albert Heijn shopping list'), with a native-language gloss (boodschappenlijst) that removes ambiguity. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from ah_get_cart by naming that sibling, so an agent can separate the two list-like tools.

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 states the condition under which this tool is NOT usable ('after a delivery slot is chosen... the list is unavailable') and names the alternative to use instead ('use ah_get_cart then'). That is a clear when-to-use/when-not/alternative triple.

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