Get Incentive Programs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two pieces of non-annotated behavior: the result scope (active plus historical programs, not just live ones) and the response organization (grouped by market). Because there is no output schema, that grouping hint is genuinely useful, but it stops short of describing result shape beyond grouping or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — scope and return organization in one clause. It is efficient, but the terseness leaves the awkward nested "query.query" parameter entirely unaddressed, which the description could have clarified in the same sentence.

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 read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the minimum is met: the agent knows what is returned and roughly how it is organized. However, a nested 11-field query object with pagination and no output schema warrants at least a note on the paginated response (next_page_token), which the description never mentions.

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 description coverage is 100%, with every nested field (symbols, statuses, program_type, page_token, etc.) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filter semantics, defaults, or interaction notes beyond what the schema says, so the baseline of 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?

"Returns ... incentives grouped by market" names a clear verb (returns) and object (incentive programs), and the qualifier "active and historical" scopes what is returned. It does not need to distinguish from a close sibling, since none of the listed tools returns incentive-program data (get_your_incentive_earnings is user-specific earnings, not program definitions), though it never says so.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no steering away from related tools such as get_your_incentive_earnings. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this for program catalogs versus personal earnings.

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