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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses patch semantics, cap-clearing behavior, renaming with survival of redemption rows, and operator restriction. Lacks some details like validation rules but sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

Extremely concise: 4 sentences, no fluff. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage tip, behavioral note, restriction. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Despite having output schema, the description fails to cover most parameters and behavior in depth. With 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without guessing.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It only explains clear_uses_per_patron and clear_total_uses, leaving 8 parameters (e.g., dpop_token, valid_from, discount_percent) unexplained. Does not meet the need for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 'Patch a coupon's editable fields', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like weather_delete_coupon and weather_mint_coupon through the patching concept and mentions renaming the code as allowed.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and explains how to set caps to unlimited via boolean flags. Also notes restricted to operator with proof, implying who can use it.

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