discounts__get_loyalty_programs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the throttling constraint (1 request per 60 seconds) and the caching recommendation, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. This is a good addition for a read-only tool with rate limits.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The throttling and caching note is relevant but slightly verbose with the parenthetical. Overall, it is well-structured and earns its length.

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 simple read-only list tool with one required parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, ID sourcing, and throttling. It lacks details on the output structure (no output schema) but the tool is simple enough that the missing return format is not critical. The throttling guidance is a significant plus.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one required parameter (organizationId) and an optional boolean (withoutMarketingCampaigns). The description does not explicitly explain the meaning of withoutMarketingCampaigns, but the schema provides a basic description. Since the description is minimal on parameter detail, it does not fully compensate for the 0% coverage, but the schema itself provides some help, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves all loyalty programs of an organization. It clearly maps to the get_loyalty_programs name and makes the resource explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discounts__get_coupon_series, though the name and context make the purpose fairly clear.

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 a clear instruction on where to get the organizationId (via organizations__get_organizations) and explicitly warns about throttling with a caching recommendation. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the guidance is strong for the main use case.

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