calculatePaymentCashback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for outlining behavioral traits. 'Create cashback' does not disclose whether the operation is a read-only calculation or a mutating creation, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return values. The word 'create' actively misleads the agent into thinking this is a write operation, conflicting with the 'calculate' intent in the tool name.

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?

While the description is short, this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The single phrase 'Create cashback' does not earn its place because it adds no meaningful information and is actually misleading. A concise description should still convey the tool's core purpose and key constraints.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and very limited schema descriptions. The description provides no context about how the calculation works, what inputs are critical, what the result represents, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 10 parameters, but schema description coverage is only 20%, with only 'merchant' and 'paymentDetails' having truncated descriptions. The tool description provides zero information about any parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The agent is left without clues about how to populate fields like 'totalTax', 'totalPaid', or 'customerId', making correct invocation very difficult.

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' is vague and misleading. The tool name suggests calculating payment cashback, but the description uses 'create' which implies a mutation operation rather than calculation. It fails to specify the resource or action clearly and does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'calculateOrderCashback'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculateOrderCashback'. The description gives no context about triggers, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. It is merely a two-word phrase with no actionable direction.

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