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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a coupon, but does not mention side effects (e.g., persistence, uniqueness enforcement), required permissions, or failure modes. The schema notes 'operator-scoped uniqueness' for the name, but this is not surfaced in the description. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, and every word adds meaning. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's complexity (7 parameters, output schema, many siblings), the description is too sparse. It does not mention the tool's role in the coupon lifecycle (e.g., before redemption), nor any constraints like needing operator credentials. While an output schema exists, the description still omits important context like when to use this versus update, and what happens upon success. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It neither clarifies parameter interactions nor compensates for the small gap (likely dpop_token). Since the schema is highly descriptive, this is acceptable, but the description adds no extra value.

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 'Create a new operator-owned discount coupon' states a specific action (create) and a well-defined resource (operator-owned discount coupon). It clearly implies a create operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like authority_update_coupon or authority_delete_coupon. The 'operator-owned' qualifier adds scope clarity, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions for creation, prerequisites (e.g., operator registration), or alternatives like updating or deleting coupons. An agent would have to infer from context that this is the tool for initial coupon creation, which is not explicitly stated.

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