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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content semantics (what a discount record contains and that applicability information is included), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or soft-deleted handling in the body — that lives only in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences with the substantive content front-loaded; the parenthetical enumeration of discount types earns its place. The trailing 'Loyverse: GET /discounts.' is endpoint trivia an agent cannot act on, marginally diluting an otherwise tight description.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place a return shape could be sketched, and it only loosely implies 'configured discounts and where they apply' without describing the list or pagination behavior. Combined with a fully covered input schema and readOnly annotation, it is adequate but leaves the response side thin.

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 100%, so all six filters are fully documented in the schema itself, including ISO 8601 format examples and the deleted_at behavior of show_deleted. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which meets the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List configured discounts') and goes further by enumerating the discount subtypes (fixed/variable percent or amount, discount-by-points) and noting it also returns where they apply. That distinguishes it from any single-record retrieval sibling, though it never positions itself against the other loyverse_list_* tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to reach for this versus loyverse_get_item or other list tools, and no hint that the optional filters (discount_ids, date ranges, show_deleted) can narrow results. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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