Coupon Get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Get' makes the read-only intent reasonably clear, but the description does not disclose what happens when the id does not exist, whether any authorization is required, or whether the response is guaranteed to include all fields.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, specifies the scope, and includes the essential id format detail without redundancy.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation details well. It could be more complete by explicitly naming the resource type and adding usage guidance about when to choose this tool over coupons_list.

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 schema only describes item_id as a string with no format details. The description adds that the id is a UUID string, which is valuable semantic information, and 'by its id' clearly maps to the single parameter. With one parameter, this is sufficient coverage.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('single item') and the lookup method ('by its id'). It clearly separates this from list/create/update/delete siblings, though it never explicitly names them or uses the term 'coupon'.

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: call this when you need full details for one item by its UUID. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as coupons_list, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when mutation tools would be appropriate.

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