get_loyalty_points_progress

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns data (read-only implied) but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or that no changes are made. The output schema exists, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the data listing.

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 concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the output purpose, followed by the parameter. Slightly improved structure could show parameter info as a bullet, but it is already efficient.

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 single optional parameter and existence of output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits usage guidance and behavioral details, and acronyms (EQDs, EQMs, EQSs) are not expanded, potentially confusing agents unfamiliar with airline jargon.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the account parameter is optional and uses a default, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default empty string. However, it does not specify what the default account is, leaving some ambiguity.

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 returns elite status progress including Loyalty Points YTD, last-year EQDs/EQMs/EQSs, and tier thresholds. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mile_activity (miles) and get_account_summary (broader account info). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Retrieves' or 'Gets,' relying on the tool name for action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_mile_activity or get_account_summary). The description only notes the account parameter is optional, with no when/when-not or exclusion criteria.

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