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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the auth failure mode (401 triggering an OAuth flow) and the fact that non-live coupons are included, which an agent could not learn from the schema. Pagination and result-size behavior remain undisclosed.

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 delivers the result set, its completeness (

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, why the ids matter, and the auth gate. It leaves return shape/pagination implicit, which is a minor rather than blocking 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?

There is a single parameter (domain) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning and the baseline is 3. The description's "this claim" phrasing loosely points at the domain-scoped lookup but never names or clarifies the domain argument, adding no syntax or format detail.

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 concretely scopes the resource: "the coupons this claim has published, live or not" including draft/inactive ones, and it supplies the ids for a named sibling consumer (atlas_owner_coupon_set). It does not, however, distinguish itself from atlas_coupons or atlas_owner_coupon_add, so an agent must infer the ownership boundary from the name alone.

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 states the precondition for calling (a signed-in inite.ai account; guests get 401 and enter OAuth), and it routes the agent forward by saying the returned ids feed atlas_owner_coupon_set. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-listing guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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