get_rewards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Check'), and the authentication requirement ('Requires being logged in'). No contradictions. It does not elaborate on error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, the disclosure is adequate.

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: the first states the core functionality, the second adds a key prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema, the description could be more explicit about return values (e.g., 'returns star count, level, and list of rewards'). However, it clearly describes what information is checked, and the sibling tools help contextualize. For a tool with zero parameters and low complexity, the description is nearly complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters documented). The description implicitly tells the agent that no input is needed (just 'Check your...'). This exceeds the baseline of 3 for full coverage by adding context that no parameters are required.

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 verb 'Check' and specifies the resources: Starbucks Rewards Star balance, reward level (Green/Gold), and available rewards. It distinctly covers the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like 'redeem_reward' which is for redeeming, not checking.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires being logged in') and implies usage for checking rewards. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context from sibling tool names helps, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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