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

The description adds useful context about bulk support (accepts ids) and indicates read-only behavior ('leitura'), which aligns with annotations. However, it does not clarify the action confusion, and the bulk behavior details are minimal. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotent, the description adds some value but not much depth.

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 poorly structured. It front-loads a list of actions that may not all belong to this tool, and the real purpose ('get') is buried in a bracket. It is not concise in a helpful way; each phrase is ambiguous and could mislead.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should be comprehensive. It does not describe return values, pagination behavior, or how bulk execution works. It also fails to differentiate from siblings, making it incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It maps cursor to list, id to get/audits/transactions, and mentions ids for bulk, but this is ambiguous because the tool only supports get. It does not explain 'account'. The description fails to provide clear parameter semantics, especially given the mixed action list.

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 says 'Cupons no Guru (leitura)' (reading coupons) and lists multiple actions (list, get, audits, transactions), but it's unclear that this tool specifically performs 'get'. It mentions [Flattened action: get] but doesn't clarify that the other actions are not performed here. This is vague and potentially misleading given the sibling tools for list, audits, and transactions exist.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools. It lists several actions without explaining which one this tool actually executes. No mention of alternatives like guru_coupons_list or guru_coupons_audits, nor any exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction.

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