luceed_bodovi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no indication of read-only vs mutating, no date-range behavior for od_datuma, no pagination, filtering, or return-shape hints. Only the bare implication of a listing action is conveyed.

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 short, but it is a fragmentary two-part label ("Scoring / points: ... Actions: lista") rather than a clear sentence, so it is borderline under-specified rather than genuinely efficient. It is not padded, which keeps it from scoring lower.

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 2-parameter data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least state what is returned and what the date filter does. It leaves both the operation semantics and the return content entirely to inference, so it is incomplete for its 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the action enum and the od_datuma date format ("D.M.YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD") are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a resource domain ("Loyalty scoring system data", "points") and implies an operation via "Actions: lista", but it never states a concrete verb like "list" or "retrieve". An agent learns the topic is loyalty points but must infer that the tool only reads/returns a list, and it gets no differentiation from siblings such as luceed_poklon_bonovi or luceed_cjenik.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the ~45 sibling tools. "Actions: lista" only names the single available action rather than explaining in which situations an agent should pick this tool over the others.

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