List coupon templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no hint of how many templates come back, whether the list is paginated or in what shape the entries are returned. For a zero-parameter list tool there is little to disclose, but what could be added is absent.

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 short clause with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified as a bare fragment lacking a verb, which keeps it off the top score.

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 no input parameters, rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what the tool is and why to call it. It does not say what the returned entries contain (e.g. the identifier field an agent would feed into template_id), which is the one piece of information a caller would still need.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of template_id refers to another tool's argument, not to a parameter here, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 names the specific resource (coupon templates) and its role as the source of template_id values, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling shoptet_list_coupons (actual coupons) and shoptet_get_price_list. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, relying on the name 'list' to supply the action, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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?

It states the concrete downstream use: use these values as template_id when proposing a coupon. That is a real when-to-use signal rather than a vague one. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative to avoid or any exclusion, so it does not reach the top band.

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