discounts__get_non_activated_coupons_by_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the MCP server rate limit (10 requests per 60 seconds) and recommending caching, which is not covered by annotations. This goes beyond the structured metadata and helps the agent manage usage safely.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential usage details in two sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool does and the second provides ID sourcing and throttling/caching guidance. No unnecessary information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does not explain the return format or structure. It covers the key input (organizationId, series, pagination) and operational constraints, but it omits details about response fields, potential errors, or behavior when series is null (though the schema mentions it can be null). For a read-only query, this is somewhat sufficient but leaves gaps for an agent expecting to interpret results.

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%, meaning the schema provides minimal field descriptions (only 'series' has a description). The description mentions 'page/page_size-пагинация' which clarifies the purpose of those parameters, but it does not explain each parameter's meaning or defaults. It partially compensates for the low coverage but does not fully describe the nested 'request' object's fields.

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 resource ('non-activated coupons of a series') and the filtering mechanism (series, pagination). The tool name itself is descriptive, and the description adds the pagination detail. It distinguishes itself from related discount tools by specifying 'non-activated' and 'by series'.

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 explicit guidance on where to obtain the organizationId (from organizations__get_organizations) and advises caching due to throttling. It implies when to use this tool (when needing non-activated coupons of a specific series) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like discounts__get_coupon_series or discounts__get_coupon_info.

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