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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the lookup-source hint (list_coupons) but says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation, or error behavior when neither parameter is supplied — with annotations carrying the weight, a 3 is right.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler — the action, the identifiers, and the one-of constraint all appear immediately.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter destructive operation, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. It could still note what happens if both or neither are passed, which is the main ambiguity an agent would hit.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds a genuine cross-parameter rule the schema lacks: exactly one of id or code must be provided (neither is marked required, and there is no oneOf). That is real meaning beyond the structured data.

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 names a specific verb plus resource ("Remove um cupom do bot") and identifies the two lookup keys. It clearly contrasts with the add/activate coupon siblings by stating removal, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Informe um dos dois" gives an explicit input constraint (exactly one of id or code), and it routes the agent to list_coupons to obtain the id. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or what happens relative to activate_coupon.

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