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 the GET endpoint and the shape of what comes back. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or anything about large result sets beyond what the schema's page/page_size fields imply.

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 sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists return fields, with the endpoint appended. No filler 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main gap it needs to fill. It stops short of describing pagination semantics or result ordering, but for a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters this is nearly 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%, so every parameter already has documented semantics (page numbering, page_size range and default, slug formats, TITO_ACCOUNT fallback). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 an event's discount codes') and enumerates the fields returned (code, type, value, quantity, quantity_used, validity window, releases), which clearly separates it from the singular tito_get_discount_code and the mutating tito_create/update_discount_code siblings. The endpoint mapping reinforces exactly what resource is touched.

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 'an event's discount codes' implies the usage context (you must have an event), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-get_discount_code guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no pointer to alternatives. Usage must be inferred.

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