Simulate coupon amount

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the word 'simulation'. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or how errors are handled. The description fails to carry the burden for behavioral transparency.

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 one short phrase, which is extremely concise but under-specified. It lacks a full sentence or any structural elements that explain the tool's purpose or usage, so it is not 'appropriately sized' for a complex tool with a nested object parameter.

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?

The tool has complex input (nested object), no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no information about expected response format, example inputs, or edge cases. This is highly incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers the single parameter with a vague description ('公式 IF のリクエストボディ' meaning 'official IF request body'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds no additional meaning about what fields the coupon_model object should contain or how to construct 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 'クーポン利用額シミュレーション' translates to 'Coupon usage amount simulation', which conveys the general action but is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-led statement. It does not specify what the simulation produces or how it differs from coupon CRUD tools like rms_get_coupon, though the tool name adds clarity.

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_issue_coupon or rms_get_coupon. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so an agent has no basis for determining appropriate invocation.

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