eb_org_discounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds a useful scope signal by saying the listing includes usage limits, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the continuation parameter, nor about ordering, result size, or what an empty result means.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the notable return content with no filler. It is efficient, though it is thin enough that a second clause on pagination or prerequisites would have earned its place.

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 readOnly/openWorld annotations and full schema coverage, the remaining burden is modest: no output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by disclosing that usage limits are returned. It stops short of covering pagination and auth prerequisites, which keeps it out of the top tier.

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% and the schema itself explains org_id's provenance, the compact/full view tradeoff, and the continuation token. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource ("discount and access codes") scoped to an organization, and even notes the payload carries usage limits. It is clearly separable from org-scoped siblings like eb_org_orders or eb_org_ticket_groups by resource, though it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the org-scoped name plus the org_id parameter make it obvious this lists discounts for one organization. There is no statement of when to prefer this over another tool, no prerequisites (e.g., required token scopes), and no note that org_id should come from eb_my_organizations (that hint lives only in the schema).

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