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

Discloses that the operation is cosmetic (non-destructive) and that the patron can re-redeem. However, it does not detail auth requirements beyond 'npub proof' or mention any side effects like rate limits or response format. Without annotations, the description carries full burden and is mostly transparent.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: action, behavioral caveat, and cost/requirement. Front-loaded with the verb, minimal waste.

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?

Covers the action and behavioral nuance but omits parameter guidance and does not reference the output schema. While the output schema exists, the description should help the agent understand inputs, which it does not.

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%, and the description does not explain what npub, coupon_id, or dpop_token mean. It mentions 'npub' in context but adds no semantic value for parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.

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 action: 'Remove a coupon from this patron's redemption list.' This distinguishes it from siblings like taxsort_delete_coupon (permanent deletion) and taxsort_redeem_coupon (adding a coupon).

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?

Explicitly states it is 'cosmetic only' and that the coupon still exists and can be re-redeemed, guiding when to use this tool versus permanent deletion. Also mentions 'Free — requires proof of npub,' providing cost and prerequisite context.

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