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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses ordering ('newest first'), the row-level times_redeemed counter, how the Studio consumes it against total_uses, and the access restriction. It does not describe pagination or the exact proof mechanism, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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, purposeful sentences: purpose, data semantics, and restriction. No filler, and the most important scope information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, and the description adds ordering and row semantics. The main gaps are the unaddressed dpop_token/proof mapping and the lack of a clear distinction from the sibling list_my_coupons, leaving the tool slightly incomplete for autonomous invocation.

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 has one parameter (dpop_token) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions dpop_token or explains how to provide the required proof. 'Requires proof' hints at authentication but does not map that to the parameter, so an agent must guess how to populate it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every coupon this operator has minted (newest first).' This clearly states the operation and scope, and the 'minted' qualifier helps distinguish it from adjacent coupon tools. It does not explicitly contrast it with roastify_list_my_coupons, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof' is an explicit precondition and exclusion: non-operators should not call it, and proof must be supplied. This gives clear context for when it is appropriate. However, it does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer list_my_coupons, so it is not a full 5.

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