Search loyalty programs

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: results are scoped to AwardWallet-supported programs and the return value is program codes. It omits pagination/limit behavior and empty-result handling, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and ending with the output/routing detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 discloses the return value (program codes), the searchable dimensions, and the consumer tool. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though limit/pagination and no-match behavior are left unstated.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete query examples ('hyatt', 'avios', 'membership rewards') that illustrate acceptable name/code inputs, and notes the optional type filter — beyond what the schema's generic 'Program type'/'Program or company name or code' text conveys.

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 (Searches) and resource (loyalty programs AwardWallet supports) plus the searchable fields (name or code, optionally type). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_loyalty_program by explaining that it returns the codes that tool consumes.

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 closing clause 'Returns program codes for get_loyalty_program' implicitly routes the agent: use this to discover codes, then call get_loyalty_program. There is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternatives beyond that, so it falls just short of 5.

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