stampcards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses only that authentication is required. It does not state that the call is read-only, does not explain what the 'full' flag changes in behavior or payload size, and gives no indication of result ordering or scope beyond 'your' cards.

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 filler and the resource named immediately. It is efficient, though terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded.

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. However, the undocumented 'full' parameter and the absent differentiation from stampcard_catalogue leave real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 is never mentioned in the description, so an agent has no basis for deciding whether to set it. With low coverage the description must 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 identifies the resource ('Cumulus stampcards') and its domain ('progress and rewards') but uses no verb, so it is unclear whether it lists all of the user's stampcards, returns a single card's status, or something else. The possessive 'Your' distinguishes it weakly from the sibling stampcard_catalogue, but the exact retrieval shape is left to inference.

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 is genuinely useful. There is no statement of when to call this versus stampcard_catalogue, cumulus_points, or cumulus_bons, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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