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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: reports are displayed publicly alongside the offer to the next shopper, they feed dead-code removal, and no personal data is transmitted. That public-visibility disclosure is exactly the kind of consequence an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the call-frequency rule, then the downstream effect, then the privacy assurance. No filler and nothing repeated from the title alone.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call, per-offer cardinality, downstream visibility of the report, and privacy. The annotations carry the safety profile and the description covers everything else an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already explains offer_id, worked, and reason with an example. The description restates worked true/false and a short failure reason, adding only mild framing ("short") beyond what the parameter descriptions already say. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: tell Papyras Coupons whether a code or deal worked at checkout, with a boolean plus an optional reason. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling retrieval tools (best_offer_for_url, get_offer, search_stores), which all read offers rather than report on them.

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?

"Call it once for each offer the user (or you) actually tried" gives an explicit trigger and an implicit exclusion (do not report untried offers), plus a per-offer cardinality rule. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating what to do if the outcome is unknown, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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