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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each reward carries redemption counters including a last-30-day window, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, caps, or ordering on what could be a long list.

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 short sentences: the action and its scope come first, the payload description second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 single-parameter read with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers both the input scope and the shape of the returned metrics, which is what an agent needs to decide and call. Missing only list-size/pagination expectations.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already explains that token_address is an 0x... contract address. The description adds only the framing that the address selects a loyalty program's rewards, which is marginal beyond structured data.

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 verb and resource ('List rewards'), the scoping key ('by token_address'), and what the response contains (redemption metrics per reward). This clearly separates it from sibling mutations such as create_reward, redeem_reward, and update_reward_status.

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 phrase 'by token_address' implies the tool is scoped to one loyalty program, but the description never says when to reach for this versus list_loyalty_programs or get_program_analytics, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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