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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety bar is low. The description earns credit by naming the returned attributes (discounts, codes, availability, redeemed count, expiry) and the underlying endpoints — valuable since no output schema exists. Pagination behavior is left to 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; scope comes first, then return contents, then endpoint detail. Nothing repeats the name or title verbatim.

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 five fully documented optional params, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers scope and returns adequately. It omits any mention of pagination or result limits, though starting_after and limit in the schema largely compensate.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the form_id scope rule and the code/form_id interaction is already documented. The description restates the form_id scoping but adds no syntax, defaults, or limits beyond the schema; baseline 3.

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 plus resource ('List TicketSpice coupons') with an explicit two-mode scope: account-wide, or form-scoped when form_id is given. The endpoint paths reinforce the distinction from get_coupon and the other coupon siblings.

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?

Clearly states the condition that selects each mode ('only those of one form when form_id is given', omit for global). No explicit exclusion or pointer to a sibling for single-coupon retrieval, but the list-vs-get split is unambiguous.

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