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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds context about the return statuses and mentions 'Free' and 'requires proof of npub', but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key return details. Every word contributes value without 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (covering return format) and a relatively simple input schema, the description provides a minimal but functional overview. However, it does not explain the status meanings or the required 'proof of npub' in detail, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The tool's description does not explain what 'npub' or 'dpop_token' are or their expected formats, providing no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists coupons redeemed by a patron on this operator, specifying it returns both active and exhausted redemptions with status values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authority_list_coupons.

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 mentions 'requires proof of npub' giving some usage context, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its numerous siblings (e.g., authority_list_coupons). No when-not-to-use or alternatives are discussed.

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