discounts__get_coupon_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful operational context: MCP-server throttling (1 request per 60s) and caching advice. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about rate limits and caching strategy, which is valuable for correct usage.

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: two sentences (or three short clauses) that cover purpose, ID source, and throttling. It front-loads the core purpose first, then practical usage notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 required parameter, the description covers the essential usage: what it returns, where to get the ID, and rate-limit considerations. It lacks a description of the return format (no output schema exists), but the tool is straightforward and the annotations cover safety. Given the simplicity, it is nearly complete, though mentioning the output structure would improve it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains where to get organizationId (from organizations__get_organizations) but does not elaborate on the parameter structure beyond that. It gives one useful hint but does not fully explain the meaning or any edge cases. The parameter itself is simple (a UUID), and the description provides minimal extra value beyond the schema field name.

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 returns coupon series that have non-deleted, non-activated coupons. It specifies the resource (series) and the filter (non-deleted, non-activated coupons), which is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like discounts__get_non_activated_coupons_by_series, so it misses the chance to preempt confusion. Overall clear but not perfectly differentiated.

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 helpful guidance on where to obtain the organizationId (from organizations__get_organizations) and gives throttling instructions. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., discounts__get_coupon_info or discounts__get_non_activated_coupons_by_series). It implies usage for series with non-activated coupons but does not state exclusions or alternative conditions.

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