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 that Tenmomo may ask users to sign in first, which is a useful behavioral trait. It does not, however, clarify whether the tool itself requires authentication, whether the URL is user-specific or expires, or other operational details.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential usage context in parentheses. No wasted words and the structure is easy to parse.

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 getter with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and key usage requirement. It lacks minor details like URL validity or any error behavior, but is largely complete 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter store_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: get the cashback activation URL for a store. It distinguishes from the sibling activate_cashback by focusing on URL retrieval rather than performing activation, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against alternatives.

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 contextual usage: users must open the link before shopping to earn cashback, implying when to use it. However, it offers no explicit comparison with siblings like activate_cashback or get_store_details, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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