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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the daily limit and the allow_multiple flag, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention what happens if the card doesn't exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects beyond adding a stamp. This is a partial disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause contributes meaning: the action, the identification methods, and the daily-limit exception. This is an exemplar of concise, high-signal writing.

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 single-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what the tool does, how to identify the target, and the key behavioral rule. It omits edge cases like error handling or idempotency, but these are less critical for a basic mutation. Given the tool's simplicity, the completeness is strong.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so effectively: 'code' is described as an 8-character identifier from the customer page, 'token' is mentioned as an alternative identifier, and 'allow_multiple' is explained as overriding the daily limit. All three parameters receive explicit semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 action ('Add one stamp') and a clear resource ('customer card'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes from siblings like redeem or get_card by focusing solely on stamping, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides usage context for how to call the tool (identify card by code or token) and a constraint (one per day unless allow_multiple). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like redeem or get_card, leaving selection to inference from the sibling names and the domain. This is adequate but not explicit.

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