checkout_cumulus_bons

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the auth requirement and that results are scoped to the current checkout. It does not state that the operation is read-only or what happens when no checkout is active, leaving some behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the precondition. No filler, though the phrasing is telegraphic and could have stated the verb explicitly at no extra length.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to convey scope and access rules, which it does. The remaining gap is the relationship to the nearby redemption and wallet tools, which it leaves unstated.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The scope statement ('current checkout') usefully explains why no parameter is needed.

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 resource (Cumulus bons) and scopes it to those redeemable in the current checkout, which separates it from the broader cumulus_bons and cumulus_bon siblings. The verb ('returns'/'lists') is implicit rather than stated, but the noun phrase plus scope is unambiguous.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires login') and implies the context where it applies (an active checkout). It does not name an alternative such as cumulus_bons for the full wallet, or redeem_cumulus_bon for the actual redemption action, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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