Get coupon operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: it discloses that receipts are immutable and that the view includes current payment state and any reversals, and the 'recovery step after a timeout' framing signals eventual consistency. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and behavior when operation_id is unknown.

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 sentences, no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the usage guidance. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what the inspection returns (receipts, payment, reversals), which is the main thing an agent needs. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only failure semantics for an unknown operation_id are absent.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the semantics ('operation_id returned by a successful redeem'). The description adds only the light constraint 'when operation_id is known,' which is essentially the required flag restated. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('a redemption operation'), then enumerates the sub-resources returned: immutable receipts, current payment, reversals. This distinguishes it from the quote/redeem/revoke siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with reverse_operation or record_operation_payment, which is why it falls short of a 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?

Gives two concrete use conditions: reconciliation, and 'first recovery step after a timeout when operation_id is known.' The precondition on operation_id is a useful gate. It does not state when NOT to use it or name the sibling to pick instead (e.g., reverse_operation once recovery is confirmed needed), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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