Search coupons

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavior; it only says 'search/list' and does not state read-only safety, pagination defaults, rate limits, or output shape. 'Issued coupons' hints at a non-mutating lookup but is not enough to fully characterize behavior.

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?

A single short Japanese sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It loses one point only because it is so minimal that it provides little beyond the title.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits pagination semantics, return fields, filtering behavior, and distinction from other coupon tools.

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%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. 'coupon_name' and 'page' are understandable from names alone, but 'hits' is ambiguous (page size vs. total hit count) and no description compensates for it.

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 'クーポン検索（発行済みクーポンの一覧）' clearly identifies the tool as a search/list operation on coupons, with the parenthetical adding scope by restricting to already-issued coupons. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rms_get_coupon (single retrieval) and rms_issue_coupon (creation), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over rms_get_coupon, rms_search_orders, or rms_thanks_coupon_search. The parenthetical implies it is for listing issued coupons, but there are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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