loyalteez_get_user_achievements

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return content (per-achievement progress plus unlocked flags), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions required for querying another user's data, rate limits, or pagination for users with many achievements.

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?

One core sentence plus a documentation cross-reference; nothing is wasted and the purpose is front-loaded. The 'See also' line is marginal value but cheap.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter read, and the description does tell the agent what comes back. With no annotations and no output schema, however, it leaves gaps around error behavior and the achievability of the user-scoped lookup that an agent calling into a loyalty system would want.

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%, including the accepted userIdentifier formats and the brandId fallback to LOYALTEEZ_BRAND_ID, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (get all achievements for a user) plus the shape of the result (progress and unlocked status). It does not differentiate from siblings like loyalteez_update_achievement_progress or loyalteez_get_user_stats, which the agent must infer from name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to loyalteez_update_achievement_progress. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or statement of prerequisites, and the doc link is the only routing aid.

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