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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint), so the description adds substantial new context: the provenance of each record (stated by a domain-verified owner), its freshness semantics (carries the last-confirmation day, which should be quoted), and a hard constraint that INITE does not run checkouts. That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then provenance, then the critical caution. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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-value description is unnecessary. For a one-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, optional filtering, data provenance/freshness, and a representation caution, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call and use it correctly.

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 'domain' parameter already carries an example ('elevenlabs.io'). The description only restates that the filter is optional and limited to one domain, adding little meaning beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Live discount codes for AI tools in the INITE Atlas') and scope ('optionally for one domain'), which is credibly distinct from the owner_* siblings. It never explicitly names an alternative tool, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring the read-vs-owner-write split from the names.

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?

Usage is implied (retrieve all codes, or narrow to one domain) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to siblings. The 'never call verified' line constrains downstream wording rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool.

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