getCustomerStampsProgress

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses almost nothing. It neither confirms read-only behavior explicitly nor explains return values, side effects, or required permissions. 'Get' implies a read but is not a sufficient disclosure.

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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not earn its place by adding value.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the tool is underspecified for the AI agent. It cannot determine what a 'stamp' is, what the response looks like, or how this relates to similar progress-tracking sibling tools.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The schema already provides a description for challengeId, but customerId is undocumented, and 'Get stamp' does not clarify how either parameter is used or related to stamp progress.

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 'Get stamp' provides a verb and a noun but omits the concept of 'progress' and lacks specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like getCustomerCampaignsProgress or getCustomerTierProgress, making its purpose ambiguous.

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 challenge context, prerequisites, or any scenario where this tool is preferred.

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