jumbo_get_stamps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly establishes a read-only, non-mutating operation and discloses the shape of the returned data, but says nothing about authentication requirements (a jumbo_login sibling exists), error conditions, or whether results are cached/live. Adequate, not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the returned data enumerated after the colon. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 compensates well by naming the three categories of data returned, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The only missing piece is the auth/prerequisite context implied by the presence of jumbo_login.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description cannot and need not add anything about 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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('digital stamps') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: per-campaign stamp counts, active saving (spaar) campaigns, and the buying-stamps balance. This enumeration distinguishes it from adjacent read tools like jumbo_get_balance and jumbo_get_deposits without needing to name them.

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 by the verb 'Read' — an agent can infer this is the retrieval tool for stamp data. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as jumbo_get_balance, nor any prerequisite (e.g. login) noted, so the guidance is adequate but thin.

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