catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses the scope boundary — what fields are included and explicitly what data categories are absent — which is the most important behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose the output format, how loose name matching behaves, or what happens when a card is not found, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by setting explicit scope boundaries. Every clause contributes to correct tool selection.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation, the cardinality, the fields compared, and the exclusions. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the return format is not described, but the implied side-by-side catalog-record output is reasonably inferable from the description and tool name.

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% (card_names with minItems/maxItems and 'matched loosely' is fully documented in the schema). The description's '2-5 cards' reinforces the schema bounds but adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('same catalog record for 2-5 cards at once') with an explicit field scope ('comparing fees, networks and which benefits each carries'). The exclusion list ('no earning rates, welcome-offer amounts, transfer ratios, or bonus sizes') sharply differentiates it from siblings like estimate_point_value and find_transfer_routes.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use condition (2-5 cards needing comparison of fees/networks/benefits) and an explicit when-not-to-use via the exclusion list, which implicitly routes the agent to sibling tools for earning rates, transfer ratios, and bonus sizes. It stops short of naming the alternatives directly, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that these are Miles' personal estimates, not market prices, that they must be attributed, and that the tool intentionally avoids other card-related data. This is meaningful behavioral context.

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 sentences deliver the core definition, usage pattern, and important caveats with no wasted words. The essential information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only estimation tool with two optional parameters, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to invoke it, important attribution caveats, and what it deliberately excludes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the no-arguments list behavior and emphasizing exact program spelling from that list, which supplements the loose matching note in the schema.

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 ('estimate'), resource ('loyalty point's value in cents'), and optional multiplication by balance. It also differentiates from card-fact and transfer tools by explicitly excluding earning rates, welcome offers, transfer ratios, and bonus sizes.

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?

Clear guidance is provided: call with no arguments to list all programs and exact spellings, and omit program to list all. It also tells users what this tool is not for, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose scope boundaries (no ratios, bonus sizes, expiry dates) which is real behavioral context, but it never states that the call is a safe read, says nothing about the `limit`/pagination behavior or result cardinality, and gives no hint about the shape of a returned route.

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?

The scope limits are stated twice in the space of two sentences — 'does not carry transfer ratios, bonus sizes' and then 'no earning rates, welcome-offer amounts, transfer ratios, or bonus sizes'. In a description this short, a duplicated negation clause is meaningful waste and the 'Card facts only' line muddies the lead.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a returned route contains (source, destination, bonus flag) since nothing else defines the payload. It states the boundaries of the data but not its contents, leaving the agent able to pick the tool but not to anticipate results.

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 all five parameters including the from_program enum and the loosely-matched to_program are already documented in the schema. The description adds only framing about what routes represent, not parameter-level meaning, 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?

The first sentence states a specific relationship (currency → loyalty program transfers) plus the bonus-status check, which is concrete and distinguishable from sibling card-fact tools. However, the closing sentence 'Card facts only — no earning rates...' conflicts with the framing 'This is the route graph only', leaving the agent slightly unsure whether this is a route tool or a card-facts tool.

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?

The exclusions ('no transfer ratios, bonus sizes, expiry dates, or which route is worth taking') implicitly route the agent to estimate_point_value or compare_card_facts for valuation questions, which is useful. But no alternative is named and no when-to-use trigger is stated, so the routing is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: 'Card name is matched loosely,' the exact field categories, and what is deliberately omitted. It does not describe no-match or ambiguous-match behavior, but for a simple lookup this is solid disclosure.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one sentence scopes and lists the fields, and a short second sentence states exclusions. Every clause adds useful information with no filler.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the returned facts, explains matching behavior, and clarifies limitations. A small gap is that it does not say what happens when no card matches or when a loose match is ambiguous.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly stating that card_name is matched loosely, telling the agent that exact naming is not required.

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 identifies a precise resource (one card's catalog record) and enumerates the exact facts returned, including issuer, annual fee, network, and foreign transaction fee. It also lists exclusions, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like estimate_point_value and find_transfer_routes.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a single card's catalog facts are needed. It explicitly states exclusions (no earning rates, welcome-offer amounts, transfer ratios, or bonus sizes), but it does not name the specific sibling tools to use instead.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden; it handles this well by declaring the open-to-new-applicants scope, the short-row return shape, and specific excluded data categories. It does not mention result ordering or pagination behavior, but for a read-only search tool the disclosed scope is strong.

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 sentences with no filler: the main action and resource are front-loaded, the output shape is stated, and the boundary with get_card_facts is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 10 optional parameters, a rich schema, and no output schema, the description conveys the essential context: one-line result rows, a pointer to the full-record sibling, and explicit exclusions. Minor gaps remain around default ordering and pagination, but the tool is fundamentally a filtered lookup and the description covers the call-level decisions an agent needs.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to re-document parameters. It names several filter dimensions (issuer, annual fee, network, rewards currency, benefit) but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema, and it omits some parameter categories like lounge access and free-night certificates.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Find credit cards open to new applicants' and enumerates filter dimensions. It distinguishes itself from get_card_facts by noting that it returns only a short row per card, so an agent can tell the two apart immediately.

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 explicit routing guidance: 'call get_card_facts for one card's full record.' The closing sentence states clear exclusions ('no earning rates, welcome-offer amounts, transfer ratios, or bonus sizes'), telling the agent when this tool is not sufficient.

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