Albert Heijn: Add to Favourite List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about authentication requirements, duplicate-item behavior, or whether existing list contents are preserved. It essentially restates what the schema already documents.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the prerequisite hint. No filler, no redundancy in phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could usefully say what a successful add returns (or whether it is idempotent), but it does not. For a two-parameter write tool whose params are fully documented, the definition is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 items parameter even carries an inline example and the quantity-0 rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Get list_id from ah_get_favorite_lists' merely repeats the list_id schema description verbatim, adding no new syntax or constraint information.

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 ('Add') and resource ('products to a named Albert Heijn favorite list'), which is enough to separate it from the shopping-list siblings by the word 'favorite'. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with ah_add_to_shopping_list or ah_add_free_text_to_shopping_list, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a concrete workflow prerequisite: get list_id from ah_get_favorite_lists, naming the sibling that supplies it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the shopping-list add tools, but the context is clear enough to act on.

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