get_bonvoy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'Reads' data, implying a non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, whether it requires a prior login, the response shape, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely depends on session state, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and the resource, making the purpose instantly clear. Every word earns its place, and the brevity is appropriate given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks critical context. It does not mention that the user may need an active session or that the data might be stale or require authentication. The presence of sibling tools like 'login', 'logout', and 'status' suggests integration with session flow, which is not addressed. An agent cannot fully determine when or how to invoke this tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so the description has no parameter information to add. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not contradict the schema and provides the minimal context needed for a parameterless read.

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 clearly states a verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('Marriott Bonvoy points and tier status'). It is unambiguous and provides enough detail to distinguish from the generic sibling 'status' by naming the loyalty program and what is read. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast its scope, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active session) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over 'status' or other read tools. An agent would have to infer the usage context entirely from the name and siblings.

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