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

The description discloses key behaviors: codes inherit discount, become immediately redeemable, duplicates skipped with suggestion, and max 500 per call. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a mutation that is not destructive. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavior, followed by parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and constraints, but lacks information about the return value or response structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what the tool returns (e.g., list of created codes, count, or errors). This creates a minor gap in completeness.

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 covers all 5 parameters: event_id, profile_id as required; codes for explicit codes; auto_generate for count; code_prefix as optional. It adds meaning beyond the schema by stating usage patterns ('Give explicit codes and/or auto_generate a count').

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 attaches or auto-generates promo codes under a discount profile, with the result being immediately redeemable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_affiliate_code' or 'create_promo_code' by specifying the context of a discount profile and the ability to handle multiple codes.

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 provides clear usage context: requires event_id + profile_id and host status, plus limits like max 500 codes and duplicate handling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'adopt_codes_to_profile' or 'create_promo_profile', which would strengthen guidance.

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