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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the sensible default sort, the field set returned, and the available filtering dimensions. It doesn't discuss pagination mechanics beyond the schema's next_offset note, but the added context is solid.

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?

One sentence front-loads the action and default, then the returned fields, then the filters, then the endpoint – dense but every clause carries a distinct piece of information with no 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 compensates by naming the fields a reward record contains, and it covers the full filter surface. An agent can invoke this confidently without additional context.

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 essentially 100%, so all nine parameters (sort, count, offset, query, status, dates, program, member_id) are already documented. The description echoes the filter list and the default sort but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List rewards') and then enumerates the returned fields (recipient, amount, status, payout type, eligibility/issue dates, member, referral) plus filters, making clear how it differs from siblings like referralrock_list_payout_transactions or referralrock_list_reward_rules.

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 states the default behavior ('newest first by default') and enumerates every filter dimension (program, member, status, recipient query, created date), giving clear context for when this tool applies. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer list_pending_payouts or list_reward_rules instead, so no true exclusions are given.

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