Albert Heijn: Search Recipes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the search language preference, the id-to-detail workflow, and the result-linking convention. It does not cover rate limits or result ordering, 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, each earning its place, and it is front-loaded with what the tool searches before moving to query tips, return shape, and follow-up workflow. No filler.

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 no explanation, yet the description still summarizes the key fields to aid selection. Combined with the ah_get_recipe routing and the linking instruction, an agent has everything needed to invoke and use this tool correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantic value for the query parameter by specifying that Dutch terms are preferred and giving domain-appropriate example terms, going beyond the schema's example. Limit is left to the schema.

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 (Search) and resource (Allerhande recipe collection), and names the concrete domain (Albert Heijn). This clearly separates it from the sibling ah_search_products, which searches products rather than recipes.

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?

Gives explicit usage guidance: Dutch search terms work best with concrete examples ('pasta', 'vegetarisch', 'stamppot', 'kip curry'), names the follow-up tool ah_get_recipe for ingredients and steps, and states the linking convention for results. The agent knows both how to query and what to do next.

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