toast_get_loyalty

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: it requires a toast.app browser sign-in via ContextMint Bridge, which no structured field conveys.

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 the resource and returned fields, then the auth requirement. The field enumeration is slightly long but each element earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both what it returns and the auth prerequisite. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single 'view' enum is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the compact/full axis, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 resource (Toast loyalty programs) and enumerates the returned fields (restaurant, program name, balances, reward progress), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like toast_get_wallet, but the loyalty focus makes it distinguishable.

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 implies it's the tool for loyalty programs but never states when to use it over toast_get_wallet or other siblings, nor any prerequisites beyond sign-in. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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