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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds further behavioral traits: FREE businesses cannot use it, requires permission checks, and must handle grace-period warnings. No contradictions.

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?

The description is information-dense yet concise. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence serves a clear function. However, it could be slightly tighter by combining some instructions.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, object with availability). It only says 'Validate whether a discount code is available,' leaving the return format ambiguous. This is a significant 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not describe the parameters 'communityId' or 'code' at all. It only mentions them indirectly as 'inputs.' The baseline for 0% coverage is 4, but the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a lower score.

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 clearly states 'Validate whether a discount code is available for a community.' This is a specific verb+resource, and the sibling 'validate_business_discount_code' exists, so the distinction is clear. The note that business and community are interchangeable adds clarity.

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?

The description provides explicit preconditions: check business permissions, FREE businesses cannot use it, call check_business_tool_access before inputs, show grace-period warning, and never proceed when access is blocked. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing a sibling tool.

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