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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — entries are append-only (immutable history) and returned in descending time order — but says nothing about pagination behavior, page size implications, or what an empty ledger looks like.

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, and the most operationally relevant fact (newest first) is placed prominently. It is arguably over-terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity and ordering but leaves the return shape (what a ledger entry contains) and pagination contract unexplained. Adequate to select, thin for correct invocation.

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 only 50%: 'cursor' is documented in the schema while 'limit' has no description at all. The description adds no parameter meaning — it does not explain that limit caps page size or that the cursor must come from a prior response in this same ordering — so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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?

Identifies the resource ('your points ledger') and a key property of the result ('newest first'), and 'append-only' distinguishes it from a balance-style sibling like get_points_balance. It lacks an explicit verb ('list/retrieve entries') and never names the sibling directly, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no pointer to the obvious alternative get_points_balance for current totals. The intent (browse transaction history) is inferable from the name and 'newest first', but nothing is stated.

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