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

The description adds value by detailing the specific information returned (requirements, deadline, official link), though the safety profile is handled by the annotations. It does not disclose critical operational behavior like rate limits or transformation rules.

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 definition is highly concise. It uses a single, dense sentence to cover the resource name, the operation, and the entirety of the data returned, ensuring zero wasted words.

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?

Despite missing an explicit output schema, the description is highly complete regarding the data structure by listing all key fields (requirements, costs, deadlines, etc.) that the agent can expect in the returned object.

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 schema coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already defines the parameter semantics completely. The description does not add additional meaning or context to the input 'id' field.

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 purpose is perfectly clear: retrieving the full detail (card) of a single specific incentive. The description clearly specifies what the resource is and what it includes without ambiguity.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools like 'search_incentives', the description clearly defines the scope of this tool as retrieving a 'full card' of *one* item, implicitly guiding the user to use the search tool for broad queries.

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