Albert Heijn: Product Alternatives

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds real value by disclosing that the return shape matches ah_search_products, so the agent knows the output contract without opening the schema. It also relays a link-formatting requirement for presenting results, though it says nothing about result counts or empty-result behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage scenarios, then output/format guidance. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With annotations covering the read-only safety profile, a full output schema, and 100% param coverage, the description is nearly self-sufficient. The one nuance it could add is whether an empty alternatives list is possible, but nothing essential 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%: product_id's provenance (from ah_search_products or ah_get_shopping_list) and the limit default/max are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond this, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get products Albert Heijn suggests instead of a given product') and sharpens the scope with 'similar products and substitutes'. An agent immediately understands this returns recommendation alternatives rather than search results.

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 concrete triggering scenarios ('when it is sold out or to find a cheaper or organic option'), which frames when to reach for this over ah_search_products. It stops short of explicitly naming ah_search_products as the alternative to use for direct lookups.

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