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

With no annotations, the description fully addresses behavioral traits: it mentions 'Updated daily', 'deterministic', and clarifies that the policy hash covers the full parameter set. This leaves no ambiguity about side effects or freshness.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes all necessary details without redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and the tool's simple nature, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its behavior (daily updates, determinism). No additional information is needed.

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 no parameters, so the description's role is minimal. However, it adds value by describing the output fields, providing context that goes beyond the schema's lack of properties.

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 states the action ('Get the current Crinkl reward policy') and lists the specific resources returned (policy version, hash, parameters, multipliers, reserve checkpoint). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on GMV, merchants, etc.

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 no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, the description is contextually clear for a read-only getter. The sibling tools are unrelated, making usage straightforward. A minor improvement would be stating that this is the canonical source for policy data.

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