novacrm_validate_coupon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: it does not say whether validation is side-effect free, whether an invalid coupon raises an error or returns a negative result, or how expiry/minimum-value rules are handled. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that there is no room for the qualifying information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what validation returns (a boolean, a discount amount, an error reason), but it does not. For a 3-parameter validation tool whose entire value is the result it produces, this leaves a critical hole.

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 the baseline is 3; the description reinforces that subtotal drives the discount computation. It adds nothing about the optional 'items' array, which is the one parameter whose effect on coupon eligibility (e.g., product-scoped coupons) is genuinely non-obvious.

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 states a specific verb+resource pair ('Valida um cupom') plus a secondary effect ('calcula o desconto'), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like novacrm_list_coupons or novacrm_create_coupon, so the agent must infer the difference itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus listing or creating coupons, and no prerequisites (e.g., the coupon must already exist, the subtotal must meet a minimum). The 'para um determinado subtotal' phrase hints at a checkout context but leaves the trigger condition implicit.

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