get_store_coupons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work here: it warns that coupons expire silently, that no code is guaranteed to work, and that each code carries its posting date so freshness is visible. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination, but the data-reliability disclosure is unusually candid.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the filter semantics, then the expiry caveat. Nothing is redundant and each sentence earns its place; the quoted bad value is illustrative rather than filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the non-obvious flag, and return-data caveats well enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the expected format of the `store` argument, which is minor.

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 must compensate, and it does for only_valid_codes: it explains the filter drops prose entries and gives a concrete example of the junk value seen. The `store` parameter is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a store's coupon codes', which is unambiguous. Coupons are a distinct resource from the deal/store/community siblings, so an agent can separate it, though no sibling is named or contrasted explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch coupons when you want a store's coupon codes. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_deals or get_deal, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only_valid_codes explanation hints at a filter decision but does not frame when to use the tool.

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