alopeyk_validate_coupon

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

The description explicitly states the tool is 'read-only' and 'Requires an access_token', which are key behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does so reasonably well. However, it does not mention response format or error conditions, which would enhance trust.

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 the main purpose. It includes a Persian translation for localization but remains efficient. The structure is logical: purpose, requirements, API mapping, then parameters.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values, but it omits information like whether the coupon is valid or expired, or error handling. While adequate for a simple validation tool, it lacks completeness regarding what the agent can expect from the response.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. For 'code', it merely restates the parameter name ('The coupon code to validate'), adding no meaningful detail. For 'instance', it adds context ('Configured instance to use (default when omitted)') but fails to fully clarify the parameter's purpose or allowed values.

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 'Validate a discount coupon code (read-only)' and includes a Persian translation for context. It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'coupon code', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like alopeyk_create_order or alopeyk_get_price, which have different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for validating coupon codes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or guidance on scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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