get_earned_badges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: the endpoint is public with no session/auth, each badge is augmented with library-synthesized badgeImageUrls, all other fields pass through unchanged, and the result stays nullable rather than coalescing to []. That is meaningful context beyond structured annotations.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the endpoint and then the return-value augmentation. Every clause earns its place (image URL template, pass-through behavior, nullability), though the long URL template makes it harder to scan than an ideal short summary.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and does so by describing the added badgeImageUrls object and the pass-through/nullable behavior of other fields. It stops short of enumerating the badge fields themselves, but for a zero-param read tool this is reasonably complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% (empty object) and there are no parameters whose semantics need explaining.

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 names the exact endpoint (`GET /badge-service/badge/earned`) and the name implies retrieval of the user's earned badges, so the verb+resource is clear. However, it never explicitly states the purpose in plain language nor distinguishes itself from badge siblings like get_available_badges or get_in_progress_badges; the 'earned' scope must be inferred.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many badge-related siblings (get_available_badges, get_badge_detail, get_in_progress_badges, get_badge_challenges). The description is purely structural about the response, giving an agent no routing guidance.

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