get_cash_vs_credit

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions authentication requirement (IWMM_API_KEY) and what is returned, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose side effects or potential prerequisites like having inventory or buy list data.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and returns. However, it lacks details on the output format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent to parse results.

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% for the single 'bonus' parameter, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The parameter is well-defined in the schema, and the description only reaffirms its role without additional context.

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 tool provides a cash vs. store-credit recommendation for the authenticated user's inventory and buy list. It specifies the comparison and the returned data (recommendation, credit advantage, out-of-pocket each way, priced buy-list lines), distinguishing it from siblings like get_cash_flow or get_portfolio_summary.

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 used when deciding between cash and store credit, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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