list_loyalty_programs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds the ownership scoping but does not mention whether expired programs are excluded by default, any permission requirements, side effects, or return format. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated, and the description offers little beyond the tool name.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, containing only essential information about the action and scope. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the schema's clear documentation of the 'include_expired' parameter, the description provides sufficient context for a basic list operation. The ownership scope is stated, and the parameter description implies the default filtering behavior. While an output schema is absent, it is not necessary for a simple list endpoint.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'include_expired' with a clear description, so the schema fully documents parameter semantics. The tool description does not add further meaning about parameters, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 tool lists loyalty programs and specifies the scope 'owned by the agent's merchant', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_loyalty_program' or 'list_gift_certificates'. The verb 'list' and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies use for viewing the merchant's own loyalty programs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the tool's name and context rather than providing explicit guidance.

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