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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: no statement of read-only vs mutating, no auth/permission requirements, no rate limits or cost notes. Pagination behavior exists only in the schema's _offset field, not in the description. The report-content summaries describe outputs rather than behavior.

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 tightly-packed paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded and the four report modes as a scannable list. No filler sentences, though the dense em-dash nesting trades some readability for compactness.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sensibly fills the output gap by summarizing what each report returns. It stops short of stating whether startDate/endDate apply to all four reports or only some, which is the main residual ambiguity for a multi-mode analytics tool.

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 every parameter (code, limit, report, sortBy, startDate, endDate, _offset) is already documented in structured form, making 3 the baseline. The description adds marginal routing value by tying 'code' and 'limit' to specific report types, but nothing the schema does not already convey.

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 and resource ('Get discount code analytics') and then enumerates the four report modes, so an agent knows exactly what surface the tool covers. This enumeration also distinguishes it from adjacent analytics siblings like get_campaign_impact or get_marketing_performance, which do not expose per-code breakdowns.

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 useful intra-tool routing ('code_details requires code param', 'by_product optionally filter by code'), which tells the agent how to drive each report. However, with ~55 siblings including several overlapping analytics tools, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance or exclusion criteria, so cross-tool selection is left to inference.

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