ihg_get_rewards_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves transaction history, but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, data format, or any constraints on the returned data. For a read operation this is somewhat acceptable, but it leaves the agent without important context.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It states the resource and the type of data (earnings and redemptions), but could be slightly more complete by mentioning whether authentication is required (sibling tools include ihg_login) or noting the typical return format. Still, for a simple read operation, it covers the core.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter details because there are none needed, earning the baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get IHG One Rewards points transaction history' and adds the scope '(earnings and redemptions)'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ihg_get_rewards_balance and ihg_redeem_points.

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 implies the tool is for viewing past reward transactions, and the parenthetical clarifies it covers both earnings and redemptions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, such as saying 'if you need current balance, use ihg_get_rewards_balance instead.'

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