cumulus_points

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the authentication prerequisite, which is genuinely useful context. However, it says nothing about what login mechanism is expected, whether results are cached or live, or how much history is aggregated, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation 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 with the subject front-loaded and no filler; the scope is stated before the prerequisite. It is efficient rather than padded, though the terseness is partly what leaves the 'full' flag unexplained.

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 described, and the login prerequisite is flagged. The definition is still incomplete for a points tool because the sole parameter is left undefined and the sibling relationship is unaddressed.

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 zero schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so the agent must guess whether it expands the period range, adds transaction detail, or changes the response shape. With coverage below 50%, the description is expected to compensate and it does not.

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 points and spend) and its temporal scope (current and previous periods), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as cumulus_profile, cumulus_wallet, or cumulus_wrapped, which an agent could easily confuse with a points-balance tool.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires login', which tells the agent the call will fail unauthenticated but not how to satisfy it. There is no statement of when to prefer this over cumulus_wallet or cumulus_profile, and no exclusions or alternatives offered.

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