Read the test player's reward history

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar. Description adds value by detailing that entries have sourceType, sourceId, amount, and status (pending→completed), and that pending rewards are included. No contradictions.

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, concise and front-loaded. First sentence states purpose and key feature (pending rewards). Second sentence adds filter example and field details. No unnecessary words.

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?

Explains entry fields (sourceType, sourceId, amount, status) sufficiently for a read-only query without output schema. However, does not mention pagination or behavior of limit parameter, leaving minor gap.

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 67% (status and rewardGrant have descriptions). Description adds context about status filtering and entry fields but does not explain limit or rewardGrant beyond schema. Adequate but not compensatory for missing limit description.

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?

Clearly states 'Read the test player's reward history', identifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like specter_claim_reward and specter_grant_reward by focusing on reading history versus claiming or granting.

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?

Provides some guidance: 'Filter by status ('pending' shows claimable)' implies when to use for pending rewards. But lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like specter_claim_reward or specter_grant_reward, and doesn't state when not to use.

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