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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful semantic context: estimates are not guaranteed cash value and historical observations are not interpolated, which helps the agent interpret the output correctly. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or how many observations are returned, but with annotation coverage the bar is lower.

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 compact and front-loads the core data types, then follows with an important caveat about interpretation. The phrase 'with the Points Frog program page' is slightly ambiguous, but overall there is little wasted wording.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of the returned historical observations and devaluation events, plus interpretation caveats. It remains incomplete because the required slug parameter is undocumented and the relationship to sibling valuation tools is not explained.

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 tool has one required parameter, slug, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explains that slug identifies a Points Frog program, nor does it state the expected format or how to discover valid slugs, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies historical cents-per-point observations and devaluation events for a program, reinforcing the title. It distinguishes itself implicitly from current valuation siblings through 'dated' and 'history', but does not explicitly name or contrast get_point_value or list_point_values.

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?

Usage is implied by the historical framing, so an agent can infer this is for trend or devaluation history rather than a current value lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no reference to the sibling tools that retrieve current point values.

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