Pay: offers redemptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' restatement is redundant, but the description adds real value by enumerating the payload fields (redeemer, reward status, referrer, redemption time) and noting results are paged. It omits auth requirements, ordering, and default page size behavior.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by payload detail and a usage note. It is a touch wordy with the duplicated 'List redemptions'/'Lists who redeemed', but every sentence carries information.

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 correctly compensates by describing the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a read-only paged list, missing only pagination/ordering expectations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents id, page, and limit with defaults. The description only implies paging ('paged') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List redemptions for an offer') and details exactly what is returned (redeemer, reward status, referrer, referrer reward status, redemption time), which separates it from pay_offers_list/get. It never names or contrasts a sibling such as pay_offers_user_code, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Use it to check whether referral rewards were granted' gives a concrete use context, so an agent knows why it would call this. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for other offer-scoped lookups.

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