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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that with '(platform-only, no cash value)', clarifying the points are non-monetary. It does not disclose how far back 'recent movements' reaches, any result limit, or pagination 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, leading immediately with the resource returned. The parenthetical clarification is compact and adds real meaning rather than restating the name. Slight under-specification rather than verbosity is the only issue.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the definition is serviceable for a simple read tool. However it leaves the scope of 'recent movements' (time window, count limit) and the api_key semantics entirely unaddressed.

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?

The single parameter, api_key, has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about how to supply it or that it identifies the caller. With coverage this low, the description is expected to compensate and does not; only the conventional meaning of an api_key makes it usable.

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 resource and action: retrieves 'Your points balance and recent movements', which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like transfer_points, award_bounty, and leaderboard. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but an agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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 only implied — an agent infers this is the read-only way to check one's own balance, versus leaderboard for rankings or transfer_points for spending. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when another tool is preferable, and no stated prerequisites beyond the required api_key.

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