Albert Heijn: Meal Plan

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses the roughly two-week forward window, the entry types returned, and the partial-failure semantics of incomplete=true (some days/entries may be missing or typed as 'other'). It stops short of stating auth requirements or result-size limits, which is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and its time window, then layers follow-up tool guidance, the own-recipe caveat and the incomplete flag. It is a single dense paragraph that stays on-topic, though the trailing linking convention sits slightly apart from the operational content.

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?

Given a one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, the date horizon, entry types, degradation signalling via incomplete, and which follow-up tools accept which identifiers. Return-value structure is rightly left to the output schema.

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% and include_empty_days is already documented in the schema, so the parameter is well covered without description help. The description implicitly conveys that the default view is populated days only, but adds no explicit guidance on when to set the flag.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource plus explicit scope: the user's weekplanner meal plan, per day from today, about two weeks out, covering Allerhande recipes, own recipes, products and notes. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like ah_get_recipe or ah_get_shopping_list because it describes the plan itself rather than a single recipe or 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?

Routes the agent explicitly: use the returned recipe_id with ah_get_recipe or ah_add_recipe_to_shopping_list, e.g. to shop the week's dinners, while own_recipe_id entries cannot be used with those tools. It also states the boundary that planning is done in the AH app, so the agent knows not to look for a write counterpart.

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