get-benefits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves benefits but doesn't describe traits like whether it requires user authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it leaves the agent guessing about implementation details beyond the basic function.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated first in English, followed by a Spanish translation. Both sentences are direct and waste no words, though the bilingual format adds minor redundancy. It earns a high score for efficiency, as every sentence contributes to clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or return values. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer more about the operation, making it incomplete for optimal tool selection, though it meets the minimum for a simple read tool.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'category', including examples (Food, Entertainment, etc.). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics, but it also doesn't contradict or omit necessary details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get available benefits and discounts for financial product users.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('benefits and discounts'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calculate-loan-payment' or 'search-credit-cards' by focusing on benefits rather than products or calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get-card-details' might overlap in scope), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., user authentication), or compare it to sibling tools like 'search-credit-cards' that might also involve benefits. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit instructions, scoring low due to the absence of when/when-not statements or alternatives.

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