calculateOrderCashback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals no side effects, permissions, or output characteristics. The verb 'create' implies mutation, which contradicts the tool name's implication of a calculation, adding confusion.

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 words long, which is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It does not convey any actionable information and fails to earn its place as a standalone description.

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 the high complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool computes, what inputs matter, or what the caller should expect in response.

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?

With 9 parameters and only 22% schema coverage, the description needed to explain key inputs but mentions none. The schema itself has sparse descriptions (e.g., 'This object contains deta'), so the description adds no value in clarifying parameter meanings.

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 'Create cashback' uses a different verb than the tool name ('calculate') and omits any reference to orders. It is misleading and does not clarify that this tool calculates cashback for an order. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculatePaymentCashback.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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