view_rewards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reports the authentication requirement, which is useful, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, rate limits, or other side effects. 'View' implies non-mutating, but more explicit transparency would earn a higher score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and requirement.

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 simple view tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned (rewards, points, tier, offers) and the authentication prerequisite. It leaves no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 action ('View') and resource ('Chick-fil-A One rewards, points balance, membership tier, and available offers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_menu, place_order, and get_nutrition by focusing specifically on rewards and offers.

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 clear context by specifying that authentication is required and that this tool is for viewing rewards/offers. It implies when to use it (when rewards info is needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks a full 5.

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