cumulus_bons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the authentication requirement, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), rate limits, or what 'full' changes in the response.

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 with no padding and the resource identified immediately. The brevity is efficient rather than rambling, though it edges toward under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a voucher-retrieval tool sitting among many cumulus_* siblings the description omits the key discriminating detail: what makes this different from cumulus_bon and what 'full' does.

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 single parameter 'full' has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning beyond it. An agent cannot tell whether 'full' expands nested voucher details, includes redeemed/expired bons, or alters response size.

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 (cash vouchers)') and clarifies the local term with a parenthetical, but uses no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a read/list operation. It also fails to differentiate from the near-identical sibling 'cumulus_bon' (singular), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved.

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?

'Requires login' is a genuine prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus cumulus_bon, cumulus_wallet, cumulus_coupons, or checkout_cumulus_bons. The agent is left to guess from names alone.

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