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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are paged and discloses the endpoint (GET /admin/price_rules.json), but says nothing about response shape, ordering, or whether filters like times_used are exact vs. range.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it lists, what each record carries, then pagination and the underlying endpoint. Nothing is redundant with the title and every sentence carries information.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a fully described parameter schema, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and paging adequately. The only gap is that an agent gets no sense of the returned fields' shape or ordering, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema.

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 nine parameters (including the date-bounded filters and times_used) are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to validity dates and usage counts, adding no filter syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("List discount price rules") and enumerates the rule types and returned fields (percentage, fixed amount, fixed price, validity dates, usage counts), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. No sibling in the list covers price rules, so no explicit differentiation is required, but the description also does not position itself against the other 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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what the admin endpoint implies. "Paged" is the only usage-adjacent hint, and the actual paging workflow lives in the parameter schema, not the description.

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