loyalteez_get_event_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (custom events, reward amounts, detection methods) and the read-only nature is implied by 'Get', but it says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. For an unannotated tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by a brief and useful 'See also' pointer to the REST API docs. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, returned content, and usage context. The remaining gaps are output structure detail, pagination, and error handling, which are minor here and partially mitigated by the linked API docs reference.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (brandId) with 100% schema description coverage, including the LOYALTEEZ_BRAND_ID environment-variable fallback. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema already documents everything.

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 (Get) and resource (active event configurations for a brand) and enumerates the returned contents: custom events, reward amounts, and detection methods. It is clearly a read/retrieval tool, but it does not name a sibling or otherwise distinguish itself explicitly from tools like loyalteez_calculate_reward or loyalteez_track_event.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to understand what events are available and how much LTZ each event rewards.' That tells the agent when the tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it does not reach a 5.

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