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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing result ordering (highest first), the per-program payload (program page and award checker page), and a semantic caveat that values are estimates for a typical good redemption rather than cash. Only return shape/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 resource and unit, followed by a short caveat. The opening sentence is long with several stacked clauses (unit, categories, ordering, linked pages), but every element is informative rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of sketching the return shape (per-program value plus program page and award checker page) and clarifying the meaning of the number. For a simple three-optional-parameter list tool this is close to sufficient; only explicit alternative-routing guidance is missing.

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 67% and both `limit` and `query` carry their own schema descriptions, so the structured data does most of the work. The description only echoes the `kind` categories (airline, hotel, bank, other) already enumerated in the schema and adds no extra meaning for filtering, search matching, or the default/max limits.

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 concrete resource and unit: estimated redemption value of one point/mile in US cents, across airline, hotel, bank and other programs, sorted highest first. It implies the distinction from single-program siblings (get_point_value, get_program) by describing a ranked multi-program list, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this versus compare_point_programs, get_point_value, or value_points for a specific valuation task, and no prerequisites or filtering guidance are given.

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