Stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when filters return no results. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by bullet points explaining two key parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. The bullet format makes the parameter explanations scannable and clear.

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 that this is a read-only listing tool with an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and explains two of four parameters, but leaves pagination behavior and other operational aspects undocumented. For a simple listing tool, this might be sufficient, but there are clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the semantics of two key parameters ('active' and 'is_percentage') that would otherwise be completely undocumented. However, it doesn't explain the 'page' and 'limit' parameters, leaving pagination behavior implicit rather than explicit. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this partial coverage is valuable but incomplete.

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 tool's purpose as 'List all coupons with optional filters' - a specific verb (list) and resource (coupons). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_coupon' (singular retrieval) and 'create_coupon' (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools like 'list_customers' or 'list_products' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_coupons' versus 'get_coupon' (singular retrieval), nor does it provide context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases. The only implicit guidance is that it's for listing multiple coupons rather than retrieving a single one.

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