Get loyalty program

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on the read side by disclosing what the payload contains (login fields, tracked properties, elite level count, supported operations like transaction history and reservation lookup) — meaningful context given there is no output schema. It stops short of describing behavior for an unknown or invalid code.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource before enumerating returned data. The parenthetical list is dense but each item earns its place by describing output, since no output schema exists; there is no filler or restatement.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating returned fields and capabilities, so an agent knows what it gets back. The remaining gap is error behavior for an unrecognized code, which is minor against annotations that already cover safety.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the pattern constraint and a source example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions only 'one loyalty program' without adding format or lookup detail beyond what the schema already supplies, which is the baseline case.

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 (Returns) and a clearly scoped resource (what AwardWallet knows about one loyalty program), then enumerates the kinds of data returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_loyalty_account and search_loyalty_programs by focusing on program metadata rather than an account or a search, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. The only pointer to how a code is obtained (search_loyalty_programs or an account's programCode) lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself offers no usage context.

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