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

The annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds concrete behavioral details about list/show actions, filtering, sorting, and pagination. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 main description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, actions, and key capabilities. The longer field lists live in the schema and do not bloat the prose description.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys that the tool returns coupon data and supports pagination. It does not spell out the exact response shape or error behavior, but the core context for invoking the tool is present.

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 schema already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds available field lists and a filter example, but much of this repeats the schema and the 'Purity filter' phrasing is unclear, providing only marginal additional meaning.

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 identifies the tool as reading discount coupons via 'list' or 'show' actions and mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling coupon-write tool, though the name and actions make the read purpose evident.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus coupon-write or other read-oriented sibling tools. It lacks explicit context such as 'use for read-only coupon access' or 'use coupon-write for modifications.'

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