recommend_coupons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and a required parameter, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires auth, or what happens if required data is missing. This lack of context for a tool with no annotations 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and the key requirement with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (3 simple string-array parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the required parameter. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of recommended coupons), leaving a gap for the agent to infer.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (times, places, activities). The description adds no semantic value beyond noting that the 'places' array is required, which is already present in the schema. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 function: recommending membership coupons based on extracted entities. It uses a specific verb ('recommends') and resource ('membership coupons'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'issue_ticket', so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have extracted entities and need coupon recommendations, with the explicit prerequisite that the 'places' array is required. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for basic usage.

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