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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it offers no additional context about side effects (e.g., creating an active discount code, potential collisions with existing codes, or whether it affects live storefronts). The description adds no behavioral transparency beyond the 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 description is not concise or well-structured. It repeats the same sentence twice: 'Create a promocode based on order amount to be applied before order payment.' followed by 'Guidance: Create a promocode based on order amount to be applied before order payment.' This redundancy adds no value and wastes space. There is no logical flow or additional information.

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 description does not provide sufficient context for an agent to fully understand the tool's role. It fails to explain what makes this promocode type distinct (e.g., that it applies to order totals rather than specific products or collections), and it does not reference any related tools or prerequisites. The rich schema covers parameters, but the overall purpose and relationship to sibling tools remain unclear.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 16 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning to the parameters—it merely repeats the title. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor detracts.

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 clear action ('Create a promocode') and a resource, but it does not adequately distinguish this tool from sibling promocode creation tools (e.g., shop_create_promocode_collections, shop_create_promocode_product, shop_create_promocode_tags). The phrase 'based on order amount' is vague and could be interpreted as the discount type or a condition, making the tool's specific purpose unclear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over the other promocode creation tools. It does not mention criteria like 'use this for amount-based discounts' or 'use this for order total conditions.' The description is essentially a redundant repeat of the title and offers no decision-making help.

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