List discount coupons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description contributes the set of fields a coupon exposes (code, discount, template, validity, usage), which helps an agent anticipate payload shape, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether code filtering is exact or partial.

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?

Two short fragments with no filler; the field inventory leads and the filtering note follows. The telegraphic phrasing wastes no words, though the missing verb makes it slightly less scannable than a well-formed first sentence would be.

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?

Read-only listing tools are simple and annotations carry the safety burden, but with no output schema the description should say more about the return envelope and result size. The field list partially substitutes for that, yet an agent still cannot tell whether an unfiltered call returns everything or a paged subset.

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 0% for the single `code` parameter, which is declared only as a string with maxLength 40. The description compensates partially by labeling it an optional filter on coupon code, but it does not clarify matching semantics (exact vs. prefix) or case sensitivity, which matters for a maxLength-40 identifier.

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 identifies the resource ("Discount coupons") and the fields each record carries (code, discount, template, validity, usage), and the name supplies the listing verb. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling shoptet_list_coupon_templates, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

"Optionally filter by code" is the only usage signal, and that fact is already encoded in the schema (required: [], code is the sole property). There is no statement of when to call this versus shoptet_list_coupon_templates, no note on whether an unfiltered call returns all coupons, and no mention of result volume or paging.

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