list_coupons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool supports pagination, search, and filters, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention return format, default sorting, or how filters behave (e.g., exact match), leaving some uncertainty. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('List coupons') and immediately adds key features. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a basic overview but lacks detail. It does not explain the response structure, how filters are applied, or any constraints like maximum page size. The schema covers parameter semantics well, so the description is sufficient for a simple list tool but could benefit from more context about expected output or usage examples.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions pagination, search, and filters, which aligns with the schema parameters (page, page_size, search, status, filters) but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description thus does not compensate for any missing parameter context, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the tool lists coupons, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions pagination, search, and filters, which conveys the scope and capabilities. It does not explicitly contrast with get_coupon or other list tools, but the resource name differentiates it from sibling list tools.

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?

The intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to list coupons. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_coupon or other list tools, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided. The description is minimal and leaves usage decisions entirely to the agent's inference.

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