List redemptions

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 the sort order ('newest first'), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or the channel scoping that the schema hints at.

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, front-loaded with the action and with zero filler. The second sentence earns its place by surfacing the pending filter, though the result is quite terse.

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?

For a read-only list tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any description of what a redemption record contains and fails to separate this tool from its search/mine siblings, which the agent needs for correct selection.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, offset, channel, pending) are already documented. The description merely restates the pending filter already present in the schema and adds no format or semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List store redemptions') plus a behavioral detail (newest first). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like store_redemptions_search and store_redemptions_mine, leaving ambiguity about which listing tool to pick.

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?

Gives one conditional usage hint ('pending=true to see only redemptions still to be fulfilled'), which is useful. But it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over store_redemptions_search or store_redemptions_mine, which is the main selection decision the agent faces.

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