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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it's cosmetic (non-destructive), the coupon still exists, re-redeem is possible, and it requires proof of npub. This provides clear expectations for the agent.

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 sentences, all essential: purpose, key distinguishing feature, and prerequisite. Front-loaded with verb. No redundancy.

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 removal tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, and requirements. Return values are left to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions npub as required proof, but does not describe coupon_id or dpop_token. The coupon_id is implied but not explicitly explained.

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 states the tool removes a coupon from a patron's redemption list (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from the sibling delete_coupon by noting it's 'cosmetic only', indicating it's not permanent deletion.

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 indicates the cosmetic nature and that the coupon can be re-redeemed, implying when to use this over permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling delete_coupon as the alternative for permanent removal.

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