loyalteez_get_streak_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read and the enumerated return fields give useful context, but nothing states whether authentication or brand scoping is required, whether the call is side-effect free, or what happens for an unknown user.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the return fields, followed by a compact doc reference. Nothing is redundant, though the 'See also' line adds little beyond the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does so concretely (length, multiplier, next milestone, checked-in-today). Combined with a fully documented input schema, the definition is adequate for calling the tool, though it omits error/empty-state behavior.

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 all three parameters (brandId, streakType, userIdentifier) are already documented with formats and the env-var fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (a user's current streak status) and enumerates the returned facets: streak length, multiplier, next milestone, and today's check-in state. That specificity separates it from sibling writes like loyalteez_streak_checkin or loyalteez_claim_streak_milestone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 read versus alternatives such as loyalteez_get_user_stats, loyalteez_check_eligibility, or loyalteez_streak_checkin. The only pointer is a doc URI, which is a reference rather than a usage condition.

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