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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is a read ('Read') and enumerates the specific data returned, which is transparent about behavior. It does not mention error conditions or authentication, but for a simple read it is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It opens with the core action and then lists the meaningful outputs. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and call parameters. It covers the return content well but completely omits parameter semantics, which are essential for successful invocation. Given the 0% schema coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 schema has two parameters (code, token) with no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention either parameter or explain how they identify the card, leaving the agent to guess what values are expected.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('one customer card'), and explicitly lists the information returned (stamps, reward, ready status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stamp and redeem, which are mutations.

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 description implies the tool is for reading a card's status but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like stamp or redeem. There is no 'use this when...' or 'not for...' guidance, leaving usage to inference.

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