Transfer Bonuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait: 'best-ever-for-route when real history exists,' disclosing that a field is conditionally populated. Everything else it mentions (timestamp, source URL) restates return values already covered by the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the output details follow. Slightly dense and could be split, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, a full schema, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and return provenance adequately. The only real gap is routing guidance against the many sibling tools in this rate/deal family.

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%, and the single optional 'program' parameter is fully documented as filtering by source or destination with examples. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return current point-transfer bonuses') and scopes it to 'tracked bank-to-partner routes,' which clearly separates it from rate, card-offer, and valuation siblings. It does not name a sibling, but the domain is unambiguous.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_card_offers, best_move_this_week), and no prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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