get_coupons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'coupon codes, descriptions, and prices,' which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's non-destructive or safe. It also omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded, with two clear sentences that state the purpose and return values. There's no unnecessary fluff, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints, but it's efficient as-is.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return types, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it's not entirely inadequate for such a simple tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'store_id' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool fetches coupons for a specific store, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value from the description.

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 purpose: 'Get available coupons and deals for a store.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('coupons and deals'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_menu' or 'get_store_info' by focusing on promotional content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., if there were a 'search_coupons' tool), keeping it at 4 rather than 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a store_id from 'find_stores' or 'get_store_info'), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_menu' for non-promotional items. This lack of contextual usage information results in a low score.

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