firestarter_vouchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction there. The description adds value by revealing the full status enum (active, scheduled, expired, exhausted, paused), the cost-tracking behavior, and the natural-language queries it serves.

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 sentences with zero fluff: the core purpose, the key statuses, and the user-question examples all earn their place. The most important info is front-loaded, and the examples are illustrative without being verbose.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned (vouchers, status, cumulative cost) and gives rich usage context; no output schema or pagination details are needed at this complexity level.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description correctly avoids inventing any.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('vouchers'), then clarifies with parentheticals (coupons/promo codes/discount codes) and enumerates the statuses returned. The example user questions ('what discounts am I running?', 'how is SUMMER20 doing?') make the tool's scope unmistakable, even distinguishing it from sibling create/update voucher 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?

The phrase 'Use this to answer...' plus two concrete example queries gives clear context for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the examples effectively signal the intended use case.

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