ht_get_fuel_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying which data points are returned (balance, earned, redeemed, expiring), but it says nothing about authentication/loyalty-account requirements or freshness of the points data.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned fields. Every clause earns its place with 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?

For a simple, single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return contents adequately. The only gap is not mentioning whether loyalty-account sign-in is required, which matters for an openWorld tool.

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 description adds no meaning for the single 'view' parameter, but the schema provides 100% description coverage including enum values, so the schema already carries the burden. Baseline 3 applies; the description could have noted the default is compact, but that is already documented in the schema.

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 names a specific verb (Show) and resource (Harris Teeter fuel points) and enumerates the exact data returned: current balance, earned and redeemed this period, and points expiring next. It is unambiguous and does not overlap with any sibling such as ht_get_cart or ht_get_receipt, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives named. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Show your Harris Teeter fuel points', which an agent must extrapolate.

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