Get Vive earn methods

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety and open-world profile, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a small amount of context about what the returned list contains, but no deeper behavioral details such as ordering, language, or scope.

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 states the resource, the action, and the key detail (reward per method). Every part earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of the title or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what information will be returned and carries no unresolved ambiguity.

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 zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description correctly focuses entirely on what the response represents rather than on inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a concrete resource: the ways an account can earn Vive points on Repovive. It also clarifies the included detail (reward per method), and this clearly separates it from payout, checkout, or profile tools among the siblings.

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 intended use is clear: call this when information about how Vive points can be earned is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 0-parameter read-only nature and unique topic make the usage context unambiguous.

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