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, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return behavior ('confirmation listing the names of successfully added products'), which matters since no output schema exists, but says nothing about auth requirements, quantity limits, or failure handling for invalid product IDs.

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 tight sentences: purpose, input shape, and return value, with the core action front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, input shape, and return value, compensating for the absent output schema. It stops short of explaining mutation side effects or edge-case behavior, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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%, so both product_id and quantity are already documented, including an inline array example. The description restates the same structure ('array of items, each with product_id (int) and quantity (int)') without adding syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb (add) and resource (Albert Heijn shopping list) with the batch scope made explicit ('one or more products'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as ah_add_free_text_to_shopping_list or ah_add_to_favorite_list, so an agent must infer which add-variant applies.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement — an agent can tell this is for adding products by product_id — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no pointer to the free-text or favorite-list alternatives among the many siblings.

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