get_olympic_games_prime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool requires an authenticated Carrefour session, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the session is invalid (e.g., error behavior) or whether this is a read-only operation, though 'Retrieves' implies read-only. The description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, lists the returned data, and ends with the authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention error cases or session requirements more explicitly, but for a simple retrieval tool, 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it adds value by describing the return content (balance, club name, link). Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 retrieves the authenticated user's Olympic Games Prime loyalty account information on Carrefour France, listing specific data returned (balance, club association, club name, website link). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_loyalty_balance and get_loyalty_cards.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (displaying the user's Olympic Games loyalty subscription and club association status) and notes the authentication requirement. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specific resource (Olympic Games Prime) makes the use case clear among siblings.

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