Get coupon

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 only states the action (get coupon) without explaining safety (read-only), required permissions, behavior when the coupon does not exist, or what the response contains. This is a minimal disclosure similar to the update_drive example, which received a 2.

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 extremely concise at one short phrase with no redundancy or wasted words. However, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name. It is not verbose, but its brevity crosses into insufficiency, similar to the 'process' example but less severe.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns, what constitutes a valid coupon_code, or how it differs from other coupon retrieval/search tools. Given the available sibling tools, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool.

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 and the description adds no meaning to the parameter 'coupon_code'. It does not clarify the format, source, or how to obtain the code. Since schema coverage is low (0%), the description was expected to compensate but did not, leaving the parameter semantics completely unexplained.

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 'クーポン個別取得' (Get individual coupon) clearly states a specific action (getting) on a specific resource (coupon) and implies retrieval of a single coupon, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rms_search_coupons which is for searching. However, it does not explicitly mention the identifier 'coupon_code' or the exact information returned, but the verb+resource combination is clear.

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 such as rms_search_coupons or rms_thanks_coupon_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The name implies usage with a known coupon code, but this is not stated.

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