Coupons List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that used and expired items are hidden by default and that `include_used`/`include_expired` opt in to show them, and it defines the meaning of `days_left` (negative = expired). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't mention pagination or ordering.

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 about five short lines and every sentence contributes a distinct piece of usable information: scope, search behavior, item type values, default visibility, and the output field. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids 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?

Given the tool has four optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, the default behavior, and the key output field semantics, making it complete for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema means return structure is already specified, so no additional return-value explanation is needed.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: it defines `search` as substring matching over name, issuer, and redeem_code; enumerates valid `item_type` values; and explains the boolean flags' effect on default visibility. Every parameter receives semantic meaning beyond its type/default.

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 the verb 'List' and explicitly enumerates the resources: vouchers, coupons, gift cards, and loyalty cards. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coupon_get or coupon_create, which target single records or mutations.

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 clear, operable guidance: it tells the agent when to use `search` (substring matching on name, issuer, redeem_code) and how `item_type` filters values. It also explains the default hiding of used/expired items and how to enable them, giving clear context for invoking the tool correctly. It does not explicitly reference alternative sibling tools, but the list-oriented context is unambiguous.

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