get_cash_vs_credit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is clearly a read operation. The description adds behavioral context about the comparison logic and return values without contradicting annotations. No hidden side effects are mentioned, but the transparency 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 very concise—two sentences that effectively convey the tool's purpose, functionality, and required information. No redundant words.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (recommendation, credit advantage, out-of-pocket costs, priced buy-list lines) and prerequisites. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (bonus) with a full description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states it provides a recommendation between cash and store credit, specifying the comparison and the return values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool offers this specific comparison.

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 mentions 'for the authenticated user' and a key requirement (IWMM_API_KEY), but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context implies usage for buylist and buy list decisions, but guidance is mostly implicit.

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