dominos_coupons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It covers shared-upstream behavior, the valid empty-list result, and the 404 error case for unknown store IDs. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple read operation it provides enough behavioral context to avoid caller confusion.

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 description opens with essentially the same purpose statement twice, which is redundant. However, every sentence after that earns its place by conveying shared-response behavior, empty results, store-id sourcing, and errors. It is sufficiently compact given the amount of caveat-covered.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains what the response contains, where the store_id comes from, that empty lists are valid, and the expected 404 failure mode. An agent can confidently invoke it without needing sibling schemas.

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%, and the schema's store_id description already says it comes from /dominos/store-locator. The description repeats the store-locator sourcing tip and adds the 404 consequence, but it doesn't meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: get one Domino's store's available coupons and deals. It also distinguishes itself by enumerating the exact content types (standalone coupons and tiered discount groups), which separates it from siblings like dominos_menu and dominos_store.

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?

It says when to use the tool (for a specific store's coupons/deals) and gives useful guidance: it shares the menu response with GET /dominos/menu so it costs no extra request, and store IDs come from GET /dominos/store-locator. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools, but the scope is clear.

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