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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine effect detail beyond the annotations: a deactivated coupon stops working at checkout and is removed from Stripe, and it clarifies this operates on the user's own store billed to their own Stripe account. It stops short of stating whether reactivation restores the Stripe object.

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?

The key action ('Deactivate a coupon or reactivate it') is buried third behind two sentences of store/Stripe preamble that reads as reusable boilerplate. It is not padded excessively, but front-loading the actual operation would make selection faster.

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, and the description covers the meaningful behavioral consequence of the operation plus the store/billing context. For a simple 4-parameter toggle with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only return/response behavior is unaddressed.

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 75% and the only undocumented parameter is the self-explanatory boolean 'active', so the schema effectively carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no note on coupon id vs code beyond what the schema already says), so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation on a specific resource: 'Deactivate a coupon or reactivate it' clearly identifies a toggle-style mutation on a coupon, distinguishable from create_coupon and list_coupons. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation described ('deactivate or reactivate'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as create_coupon for new coupons or list_coupons for discovery. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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