parse_wallet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it spells out the return shape (balances, unrecognized, needs_clarification), and crucially states the no-guessing policy — 'Anything ambiguous lands in the latter two lists instead of being guessed — show it to the user rather than dropping it.' This is a meaningful behavioral trait. It stops short of edge-case handling (e.g., empty text), keeping it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact example, the return schema, and the behavioral contract. Each sentence earns its place. It runs slightly long due to the dual example-and-schema-format block, but nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter parse tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input, enumerates the three output lists, and defines the ambiguity contract. The absence of an output schema means the description must explain return values, which it does. Minor omission: it doesn't state a reasonable fallback for degenerate input, but the tool's complexity doesn't demand it.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. The example input ('I have 250k Amex MR, 80k Chase...') conveys the expected free-text format with program names and amounts, which is the main semantic need. However, the description never explicitly defines the parameter's contract beyond the example — it leaves the agent to infer that text is a raw user message about point balances.

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 opening line 'Turn free text about points balances into structured wallet entries' uses a specific verb (turn/parse), a defined resource (free text about points balances), and a concrete outcome (structured wallet entries). It clearly differentiates from siblings list_programs and solve_award_trip, which serve materially different purposes.

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 provides an explicit when-not-to-use condition: 'If you already know the balances in structured form, skip this and build the wallet directly.' This tells an agent precisely when the tool is unnecessary. It implies when to use it (when balances exist only as free text) via the example, though it doesn't formally exclude siblings — acceptable since the siblings are not genuine alternatives to a text-parsing operation.

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