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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the action is non-destructive, reversible (re-redeemable), free, and requires proof of `npub`. Some ambiguity remains about what 'proof of npub' means operationally, but the core side effects and persistence of the coupon are clearly stated.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the key caveat about cosmetic effect, and the cost/auth note. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 simple schema, the output schema presence, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the effect, non-destructiveness, re-redeemability, cost, and auth requirement. It could add a bit more about prerequisites or failure modes, but those are not essential for this straightforward operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to `npub` (patron identity with proof requirement) and `coupon_id` (the coupon being removed) implicitly, but it says nothing about the optional `dpop_token` parameter. This is partial compensation, not full coverage.

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 specific action ('Remove a coupon from this patron's redemption list') with a clear resource and subject. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `goodearth_delete_coupon` by explicitly saying the coupon still exists at the operator, so an agent can tell these apart.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when the goal is only to remove a coupon from a patron's list, not to permanently delete it. The 'Cosmetic only' qualifier implies when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide an explicit when-not statement.

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