Coupon Create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining issuer-domain matching, empty expiry_date handling, value_type constraints, item_type special requirements, and the return of the created item. It does not cover authorization, idempotency, or duplicate handling, but the provided details are substantial and genuinely useful.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action and then efficiently packs the critical parameter constraints into a compact block. There is no filler or repetition of schema trivia.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the non-obvious behavioral rules, value formats, domain matching, expiry semantics, and item-type restrictions. The output schema exists, so not explaining return shape in more detail is acceptable. An agent could plausibly invoke this tool correctly with only this description.

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. It explains issuer, redeem_code, expiry_date, value_type, item_type, and value constraints in detail. It omits explicit semantics for name, currency, and description, though those are fairly self-evident or covered by schema defaults. The description does not just repeat the schema; it adds real meaning.

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-resource pairing: 'Create a new item (coupon, voucher, gift card or loyalty card).' This clearly separates it from the sibling list/get/update/mark_used/delete tools. The inclusion of domain-specific constraints further reinforces what the tool is for.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when creating a new coupon-type item. It does not explicitly say 'use coupon_update instead for existing items' or list exclusions, but the sibling names combined with 'Create a new item' give adequate context. A small gap is the absence of direct alternative routing.

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