loyalteez_calculate_reward

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the return breakdown, multiplier ranges (1.0-5.0x), flat bonus bounds (0-1000 LTZ), and the three stacking modes. It stops short of clarifying whether the call is a pure computation or has side effects on the user's balance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, kept to three tight sentences plus a doc pointer. The second paragraph is dense but every clause adds behavioral context rather than filler.

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?

For a 6-parameter calculation tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers return contents, bonus arithmetic, and stacking rules. The main gap is whether the operation is read-only or mutates reward state.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics about how the `roles` parameter is interpreted (stacking mode, multiplier vs flat bonus), but nothing beyond the schema for the other five parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (final reward) plus the scope of inputs (role multipliers & bonuses) and the return shape. It is clearly distinguishable from state-changing siblings like log_activity or claim_drop, though it never explicitly names a conflicting alternative.

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?

The description never says when to call this versus alternatives such as admin_reward, check_eligibility, or track_event. It points to a docs resource but gives no conditions for use, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g. whether the event must already exist).

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