share_get_points_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results span multiple sources (balance, quota, three partner sites), implying an aggregated cross-service read. It omits auth prerequisites and that partner-site figures may be fetched live (openWorld), so it adds some but not rich context.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and lists the three aggregated values with no filler. Nothing redundant, nothing to trim.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanations are unnecessary, and with zero parameters the schema burden is nil. What remains missing is the relationship to sibling points tools, which matters given a crowded points family. Otherwise the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline rule this scores 4. The description correctly implies the call needs no scoping inputs.

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 a specific aggregation action and enumerates the three quantities it combines (points balance, monthly received transfer quota, redeemable points at partner sites). This is far more informative than a tautology. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby share_get_point_transfer_quota, which covers overlapping subject matter.

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 call this versus alternatives. The sibling set contains several closely related points tools (share_get_point_transfer_quota, share_get_redeem_quota, share_list_my_point_logs), yet the description does not say whether this is a dashboard summary to call first or a redundant view. Usage is only inferable from the name and field list.

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