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

The description and annotations agree on read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, details about bulk execution semantics, rate limits, or whether the 'audits' action returns historical data are absent, leaving behavioral edges unclear.

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 short but redundant, repeating 'audits' in the action list and the flattened action note. It could be more concise by focusing on the primary purpose and eliminating the generic action list.

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 appears to be a multi-action wrapper (especially for audits with bulk support), the description lacks context on expected outputs, error handling, or how the actions are invoked (e.g., whether a single call can mix actions). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 schema lists four parameters without descriptions. The description partially explains relationships (cursor for list, id for get/audits/transactions), but the 'account' parameter is unexplained, and the distinction between 'id' and 'ids' is not elaborated. Coverage is below 50%.

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 states it is read-only and lists actions (list, get, audits, transactions), but the tool name suggests it is specifically for audits, creating ambiguity about the primary purpose. The phrase 'Cupons no Guru (leitura)' makes read-only clear, but the multi-action list dilutes focus.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like guru_coupons_get or guru_coupons_list. The mention of bulk support for ids is a hint, but it does not clarify which action is appropriate for which scenario or how it relates to other coupon tools.

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