kroger_coupons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a page (pagination), that it is public and anonymous, and that account-specific clipping state is not included. It limits surprises and is sufficient for a read-oriented call, even without discussing rate limits or authentication.

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 is compact and front-loaded: first sentence states what the tool does, the second enumerates the return fields without padding, and the closing sentence clarifies the anonymous/public scope and the key exclusion. Every sentence contributes information needed by the agent.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the coupon fields returned and describes the key filters. It does not fully cover pagination details such as default page size or how location_id interacts with other filters, but for a query-only coupon catalog tool the description is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning by calling out that upc and brand act as narrowing filters, but page_size and location_id get no additional context beyond their schema descriptions, so the description adds only modest value here.

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 clearly states the verb/resource ('Get Kroger digital coupons') and enumerates the specific returned fields (savings value, requirement text, brand, categories, dates, etc.). It also distinguishes this from account-level coupon/clipping tools by explicitly saying it is the anonymous public coupon catalog and per-account clipping state is not returned.

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 description gives useful context by noting that the catalog is anonymous and public, and that optional filters exist for product (upc) or brand. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this when...', but it does say what it does not return which helps an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate.

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