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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the danger profile is covered structurally. The description adds the unpaid-registration constraint, but says nothing about error behavior on paid registrations, permissions required, or what happens on a repeat call despite idempotentHint=false.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (not paid yet) is placed where it will be read. Nothing redundant is included.

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 mutation tool whose annotations already carry the destructive profile, the description is close to sufficient. The unresolved gap is how the registration and discount code are identified when only business_id is accepted.

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?

The only parameter, business_id, has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains it. Worse, the description references 'a registration' and 'the discount code' without any parameter that identifies either, leaving the agent unsure how the target is selected.

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 and resource ('Remove the discount code'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling apply_discount_code. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the resource naming makes the opposite operation obvious.

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 provides a real precondition: the registration must not be paid yet. That is clear context for when the tool is valid, though it stops short of naming apply_discount_code as the inverse or saying what to do when the registration is already paid.

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