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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds useful return-content context (discount types and applicability) and the REST endpoint, but omits pagination, default result limits, and auth requirements.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the resource and scope come first and the endpoint hint trails as a compact second clause.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It could still note pagination behavior or that soft-deleted records are excluded by default, but no output schema is needed.

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 filter parameters (discount_ids, show_deleted, created/updated bounds) are already fully documented with formats and examples. The description adds nothing param-specific, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List configured discounts') with extra specificity about the discount variants returned (fixed/variable percent or amount, discount-by-points) and their applicability. It is self-differentiating from siblings like list_taxes or list_payment_types by resource, but never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list tools. The agent can infer it retrieves the discount catalog, but nothing steers selection or warns about exclusions (e.g., deleted records without show_deleted).

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