Get loyalty settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no auth requirements, rate limits, caching, or default-channel resolution behavior), leaving only the field list as added value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration of returned fields is dense but each item carries information. Slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned settings (currency name, points per interval, subscriber multiplier, per-event bonuses, ignored users), which is exactly the information an agent needs to interpret the result. The single parameter is fully covered by the schema.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the channel id format and its SE_CHANNEL_ID fallback. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get the channel's loyalty/points settings) and enumerates the exact contents returned, so an agent knows precisely what it fetches. It is clearly the read counterpart of loyalty_update_settings, but the description never names that sibling to make the differentiation explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'get' framing versus the sibling loyalty_update_settings signals inspection rather than modification, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no stated alternative. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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