vtex_get_coupon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid codes), or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear language. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., discount amount, expiration), error cases, or any side effects. For a read operation with missing structured context, more descriptive content is needed to fully inform usage.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions 'by code', aligning with the 'couponCode' parameter, but the schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description ('Coupon code'). No additional details on format or constraints are provided. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get coupon details by code' clearly states the action (get) and resource (coupon details), with the specific identifier (code). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_list_coupons' (list all) and 'vtex_create_coupon' (create). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include (e.g., validity, discount), making it slightly less specific than a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid coupon code), exclusions (e.g., not for archived coupons), or comparisons to siblings like 'vtex_list_coupons' for bulk retrieval. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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