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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: provenance (each code was stated by a party who proved domain ownership), freshness semantics (each code carries a last-confirmed day that should be quoted), and a hard limitation that INITE does not run other companies' checkouts and therefore cannot verify codes.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load what the tool returns, then layer provenance and the verification caveat. Every clause carries information, though the final sentence is dense enough that it packs two distinct rules (no checkout ownership, never claim verification) into one.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. For a read-only, closed-world listing tool, the description covers what an agent must know: what the data is, how trustworthy it is, how to cite freshness, and what claims to avoid.

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 limit, domain, and offset are already documented. The description only echoes the optional single-domain filter and adds no meaning about pagination or limit behavior beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 specific resource (live discount codes for AI tools in the INITE Atlas) and its optional scoping (one domain). It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like atlas_search or atlas_lookup, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

It does give one strong usage constraint — never call a code verified or tested, and quote the confirmation date — which shapes how results are presented. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to reach for this tool versus atlas_lookup or atlas_search, so the when-to-use decision is only implied by the resource description.

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