PayPing: list coupons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the type-code semantics (0 = percent, 1 = Toman), which is genuine value beyond the annotations, but says nothing about paging behavior or result ordering.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the meaningful fields with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present, the field enumeration is somewhat redundant, and the annotations already carry the read-only profile. The definition is adequate for a simple list call but adds little beyond what structured fields already provide.

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 100% with all four parameters (limit, offset, search, include_archived) fully documented in the schema, including the 1-50 cap. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 discount coupons') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this yields. It distinguishes itself from the singular payping_get_coupon and payping_create_coupon siblings implicitly via 'list', but never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as payping_get_coupon for a single coupon or payping_create_coupon for writes. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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