Recommend Cupom Center integration flow

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the cost/side-effect statement: local execution, no commercial effect, no API allowance consumed. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to call this freely before committing to a real operation. It omits what the recommendation actually looks like on return, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the cost profile and the usage trigger. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

For a simple three-parameter routing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and trigger well. What it leaves out is the shape of the response (a flow name, a step list, sibling tool names) and any explanation of the two boolean inputs. An agent knows when to call it but not quite what it will get back or how the flags change the answer.

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%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could be supplied, and it supplies none. The business_goal enum values are largely self-describing, but payment_confirmed and operation_id_known are undocumented anywhere, and the description never explains how those flags alter the recommended flow. The enumerated action list loosely mirrors the enum but adds no guidance on selecting among the nine 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 states a specific action and object: choose the correct Cupom Center workflow before making API calls. It also frames the tool's role as a pre-flight router by enumerating the action families (discover, quote, issue, redeem, record payment, inspect, reverse) that map onto the sibling tools. It stops short of naming the sibling tools directly, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use it whenever it is unclear whether to...' followed by the full list of decision points. That tells an agent when this tool is preferable to guessing among siblings. It does not explicitly say when to skip it (i.e., when the operation is already obvious, call the sibling directly), which keeps it from a 5.

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