dictionaries__get_discounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the MCP-server throttling limit (1 request per 60 seconds) and advising caching—behavioral details not present in annotations. It does not contradict annotations and helps the agent plan for latency and rate limits.

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 covers multiple essential aspects (purpose, args, return, ID sourcing, throttling) in a short space. However, the formatting is a bit run-on—'Response with a list of discounts Where to get ID' lacks clear separation—and mixing Russian/English reduces polish.

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 simple read-only tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it: parameter purpose, ID sourcing, return type, and a critical throttling note. It lacks explicit differentiation from a closely related sibling, but that is more a usage-guideline issue than a completeness gap for invocation.

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?

Even though the top-level parameter has no description in the schema (0% coverage signal), the schema's nested DiscountsRequest does describe organizationIds. The description augments this by pointing to organizations__get_organizations as the source for IDs, which is more actionable than the schema's generic '/api/1/organizations' reference. It helps the agent correctly populate the parameter, though it stops short of explaining the full request structure.

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 'Get discounts' with a clear verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool dictionaries__get_discounts_by_organization. The parameter and return type are mentioned, yet the differentiation needed to pick between these two similar tools is absent.

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 useful context: where to get organization IDs (organizations__get_organizations) and a throttling/caching recommendation. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the alternative by_organization variant, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond ID sourcing.

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