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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates this is a read operation (list) and provides ordering and a note about the times_redeemed counter. However, it lacks details on authentication (beyond 'proof'), pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is incomplete.

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 brief, using two short sentences plus a note. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description is missing critical context such as pagination, limits, and how to obtain the required proof. For a list tool that may return many items, this is a notable gap.

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 only parameter (dpop_token) is not mentioned in the description. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no context about what this parameter does or when it should be provided.

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 every coupon minted by the operator, sorted newest first. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'coupons' with a clear scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'authority_list_my_coupons', which might have a different scope.

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 'RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof', providing a clear condition for usage. It does not specify when not to use or suggest alternative tools among the many siblings.

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