Issue thanks 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 merely restates 'Thanks coupon issuance' without revealing any side effects, permissions required, data mutation implications, or return behavior. This is completely transparent.

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 short phrase and technically concise, but it is severely under-specified. It adds no information beyond the title and fails to earn its place, making it closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.

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 complexity of a free-form body object and no output schema, the description is vastly incomplete. It provides no context about required fields, expected request format, response contents, or error conditions, making the tool unusable without external documentation.

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 1 parameter ('body') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what the body should contain or how it relates to issuing a thanks coupon. Since the body is an open free-form object, the description must compensate but does not.

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 'サンキュークーポン発行' (Thanks coupon issuance) clearly conveys the action of issuing a thanks coupon, matching the title. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like rms_issue_coupon or rms_thanks_coupon_update, which may have overlapping functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention specific scenarios, prerequisites, or relationships to other coupon tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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