list_discounts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination mechanics ('use the after parameter with the last ID'), default behavior ('use maximum perPage by default'), data format ('amounts are in smallest currency unit'), and filtering capabilities. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but adds significant operational details.

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 efficiently structured with 5 sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose statement, default usage, filtering options, pagination instructions, and data format note. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every sentence earns its place without wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, pagination, filtering), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), and schema provides full parameter documentation. The description adds important operational context: pagination mechanics, default behavior, and data format. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, but for a list operation with good schema coverage, this 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic context: it mentions filtering by 'code, id, status, and mode' (matching schema parameters) and explains pagination with 'after' and sorting with 'orderBy'. However, it doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already describes, such as parameter interactions or edge cases.

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: 'list discounts in the account's catalog.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('discounts'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_discount' or 'list_discount_groups' beyond the name. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling comparison context.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use the maximum perPage by default (200) to ensure comprehensive results' suggests a best practice, and mentions filtering, pagination, and sorting. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_discount' (for single discounts) or 'list_discount_groups', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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