Albert Heijn: Create Favourite List

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses that the created list is empty, warns that AH silently drops punctuation such as '-', and names the follow-up tool. It stops short of describing whether the id is returned in a wrapper object or listing other side effects.

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?

One compact sentence pair with the creation action front-loaded, then the normalization caveat, then the follow-up tool. No filler, and ordering follows the agent's decision path.

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 create tool with an output schema already covering the return value (the id), the description covers what it is, the empty-state behavior, the naming quirk, and the next step. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100% for the single required 'name' parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that the name value is normalized server-side (punctuation like '-' is dropped), which is semantics an agent cannot get from the schema alone.

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 ('Create a new, empty Albert Heijn favorite list') and scopes it to the given name. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like ah_get_favorite_lists, ah_delete_favorite_list, and ah_add_to_favorite_list.

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 routes the agent to the next step: 'add products with ah_add_to_favorite_list,' which names the correct alternative tool for populating the list. It gives clear context for use but does not state prerequisites (e.g. login requirement) or any when-not condition.

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