list_programs

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It precisely outlines the return structure (an object with 'names' and 'plannable' fields) and elaborates on the meaning of 'plannable' (award programs with priced charts plus bank currencies that transfer into one). This gives the agent solid insight into what the tool returns and on what basis, well beyond a generic 'list' statement.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second defines the return shape, and the third explains the 'plannable' field and its intended use. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or padding, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It fully defines the return object, explains the semantics of each field, and explicitly ties the output to the sibling tool solve_award_trip. There are no critical gaps that would prevent an agent from correctly invoking the tool and interpreting its results.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. Per the rubric, a tool with zero parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on output and usage rather than parameters, so the score reflects this baseline.

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 begins with 'List every rewards program AwardMath tracks,' which is a clear verb and resource definition. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like parse_wallet or solve_award_trip, but the listing nature is unmistakable given the name and the different purposes of those siblings. Thus it is specific but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 goes beyond just stating what it does by explaining when to use the output: 'Use these ids in solve_award_trip wallets.' This directly connects the tool to a sibling and prescribes how the returned 'plannable' ids should be consumed. It also clarifies which programs qualify as 'plannable,' giving the agent a clear decision rule for usage.

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