Call AwardWallet API (read)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: writes are refused rather than attempted, and the return value is AwardWallet's raw JSON, plus a reference URL for the upstream contract.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and its hard constraint, then the discovery source and reference link. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description correctly states the response is AwardWallet's JSON, which is enough. Error handling and pagination behavior are unaddressed, and the nested input object is left entirely to the schema, but for a generic passthrough call the essentials are present.

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 explains that input carries path params plus query/body and that operationId comes from search_api_operations. The description only restates the discovery source, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (runs), a specific resource (a read-only AwardWallet API operation), and the mechanism (access=read in search_api_operations). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the write sibling by stating it 'Refuses write operations'.

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?

Tells the agent the operation must come from search_api_operations and that writes are rejected, which implicitly routes write intent to call_api_write_operation. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly or stating when the read path is preferred over the many dedicated get_/list_ tools.

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