steward_rewards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile ('Free, read-only — never signs or spends'), plus the scope of knowledge covered. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned content, but for a zero-parameter, no-side-effect lookup the disclosed traits are the ones that matter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool covers and immediately followed by the routing instruction. Every clause earns its place: subject matter, when to read it, and the read-only guarantee.

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 parameterless knowledge tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what information it yields and its safety characteristics. It does not describe the return format, but with no output schema declared that gap is minor.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. No input semantics are needed or missing.

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 resource — the Booms Rewards program — and enumerates its contents (buyer earn rates, referral rates, free store enrollment). It is clearly a knowledge/documentation lookup rather than an action, which distinguishes it from action siblings like steward_iss_pass or steward_purchase_instructions, though the verb is implicit ('how X works' rather than 'get X').

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions and names the sibling it pairs with: read before buying via steward_purchase_instructions, or before enrolling a store as a merchant. An agent knows exactly when this tool is relevant without inferring anything.

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