list_discounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the auth requirement (Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN), that the response is paginated, and enumerates three 400 error codes with their triggers. It stops short of describing pagination mechanics (page size/cursor) and the response shape, but the safety and failure profile is well covered.

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 one-line purpose and endpoint are front-loaded, then labeled sections (FILTERS, ERRORS, AUTHENTICATION) make it scannable. It is on the long side, but every line carries actionable constraint detail rather than 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?

For a 9-parameter, two-required read tool with no annotations, no enums in the schema, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing enums, cross-field constraints, auth, and error semantics, and notes the paginated return. Only the pagination controls and response fields are left unspecified, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by supplying enum values the schema omits entirely: scope (event, multi_events, user), type (coded, access, public, hold), order_by (code_asc, code_desc, discount_type_asc/desc, start_asc/desc), and hold_ids format (H123 or I123). It also clarifies code vs code_filter semantics and the code/name matching distinction.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Discounts by Organization') plus the concrete endpoint GET /organizations/{organization_id}/discounts/, which lets an agent immediately distinguish it from singleton siblings like get_discount. It does not explicitly contrast with create_discount/update_discount, but the read-list framing is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a dedicated FILTERS block with required scope values and, crucially, conditional rules: 'event_id (required for event scope)' and 'order_by... Must provide code or code_filter for sorting'. These are explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use constraints an agent can act on.

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