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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real context beyond them: which coupon types are returned, that archived coupons are omitted by default, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required for auth.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then the filtering behavior and the create_coupon routing tip. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents, scoping, default filtering, and auth needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or result limits.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'left out unless you ask for them' mirrors the include_archived schema description rather than adding syntax or format detail.

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 resource (Teachable school and product coupons) and enumerates the returned fields (code, discount, uses, expiry, status), plus the two coupon scopes. An agent can distinguish it from teachable_create_coupon and teachable_archive_coupon without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says to check the list before create_coupon so a code is not reused, and notes archived coupons are excluded by default. Gives clear usage context but does not enumerate other alternatives or when-not-to-use cases beyond archived filtering.

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