get_cash_vs_credit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains the recommendation logic and outputs, and notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no destructive side effects, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 long, with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second expands on outputs and requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one well-described parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the API key requirement. It could mention prerequisites like having inventory and a buy list, but overall it is sufficiently 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 single parameter 'bonus' is fully described in the input schema (range, default, explanation). The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 identifies the tool's purpose: recommending between cash and store credit for the authenticated user. It uses specific verbs like 'compares' and 'returns', and inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cash_flow or get_market_sell_value, which address different financial calculations.

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 states the context (authenticated user with inventory and buy list) and mentions the requirement for IWMM_API_KEY. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for correct selection among siblings.

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