spend_reward_points

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a verified failure mode: the API returns 500 if the balance would go negative, and it directs the agent to get_account_info first. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire definition with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical warning is placed immediately after, making the description easy to scan and parse.

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?

The definition is nearly complete for invocation: the schema fully documents parameters, an output schema exists, and the description supplies the most important operational caveat. The only mild gap is that 'a reward' is not explicitly defined or parameterized, but this does not block correct use.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'large purchases' vaguely relates to the points amount, but it does not clarify format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 the operation: spending reward points on a reward. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous, and the phrase 'on a reward' helps distinguish it from related point-management operations. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for contrast, so it stops 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?

The description provides an explicit precondition: check the balance via get_account_info before large purchases to avoid the 500 error. This is clear, actionable usage guidance. It does not, however, discuss when not to use this tool or when an alternative should be chosen.

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