Albert Heijn: Add to Shopping List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/no-destroy profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the response lists 'successfully added' product names, hinting at partial success, but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether items are appended to or replace the existing list, or how duplicate product IDs/quantities are merged.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the call shape and return value. Minor redundancy with the schema's example, but nothing extraneous.

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?

Single fully-documented parameter and no output schema, and the description covers both the input shape and the return confirmation, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing only secondary context: auth state and append-vs-replace list semantics.

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%, including the array shape and an inline example, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of '(int) product_id and quantity' duplicates the schema without adding constraints such as the 50-item cap or the odd negative minimum on quantity.

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 ('Add one or more products to your Albert Heijn shopping list') with clear batching scope. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like ah_add_free_text_to_shopping_list, ah_add_recipe_to_shopping_list, or ah_add_to_favorite_list, so an agent must infer the split from names alone.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no sibling is named. Usage is only implied by the requirement of numeric product IDs, which suggests IDs come from ah_search_products/ah_get_products, but the agent must construct that workflow itself.

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