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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the underlying endpoint reference (GET /v1/discounts/) and the note that results carry redemption limits. It does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether an empty result/absent organization_id changes scope.

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, front-loaded with the operation and resource, with no filler. The trailing REST endpoint reference is marginal value for an MCP agent but costs almost nothing in length.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level but omits return-shape and pagination semantics that the schema alone doesn't convey. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, and all four parameters (page, limit, query, organization_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the multi-org caveat on organization_id. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("List discount codes") and adds scope detail about redemption limits. The resource is unique among siblings, so no routing ambiguity, but the description does nothing to distinguish its behavior from the other list_* tools beyond naming the resource.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb "List". An agent must infer that this is the tool for enumerating discount codes rather than, e.g., looking them up individually.

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