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 value by naming the returned fields and the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/affiliate_coupons), giving the agent a picture of the response shape not present in structured fields.

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?

A single tight sentence, field list front-loaded, endpoint appended as a trailing reference. No padding or redundancy.

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, but the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and scoping the operation. Combined with readOnlyHint and complete parameter docs, an agent has what it needs, though pagination behavior could be noted.

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 the schema fully documents page, limit, and affiliate_id. The description only adds a light restatement of affiliate_id ('optionally for one affiliate'), 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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'affiliate coupon / promotion codes' with an explicit enumeration of returned fields (token, Stripe id, leads, conversions, archived). An agent can distinguish this from rewardful_get_affiliate_coupon (singular fetch) and rewardful_create_affiliate_coupon.

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 phrase 'optionally for one affiliate' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools like get_affiliate_coupon for single-record retrieval.

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