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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag non-readonly/non-destructive/non-idempotent): it discloses lifecycle behavior (coupon stops showing unless confirmed every 45 days), publication surface (card + Atlas feed), and auth behavior (guest call returns 401 and starts OAuth). Rich, non-redundant context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and single dense but purposeful sentences; each clause carries information (fields, expiry, auth). Minor awkwardness in 'proved owner' phrasing slightly hurts readability but not size.

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?

With no output schema, the description still communicates the resulting state (published on card/feed, expires without reconfirmation) and the auth path for a 2-param nested-object tool. AppliesTo/terms/startsAt remain unaddressed, a small gap.

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 coverage is 50% with a 12-property nested coupon object undocumented in the schema, and the description compensates by explaining title format, endsAt ISO/within-a-year constraint, url meaning, and the kind alternatives (code/percentOff/amountOff+currency/trialDays). It leaves terms, startsAt and appliesTo unexplained, so not a full 5.

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+resource (publish a discount on the card and Atlas coupon feed) and is clearly distinct from the sibling list/confirm tools (atlas_owner_coupons, atlas_owner_coupon_set). An agent can tell what this creates without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the prerequisite ('For a proved owner') and names the alternative for the maintenance cycle (atlas_owner_coupon_set, every 45 days). It does not explicitly contrast create-vs-update semantics against the sibling set/coupons tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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