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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it confirms there is no accept or decline endpoint, notes these are active promotions, and gives intended UX direction. This helps the agent avoid offering impossible actions.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the resource and scope, the behavioral limitation and user-facing framing, and the parameter usage. No fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It conveys purpose, parameter behavior, and constraints. It stops short of describing the shape or fields of a promotion object, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents uuid and organization. The description reinforces the uuid behavior ('Pass uuid for one promotion's detail') but adds little beyond the schema. It does not mention organization, but that is already covered in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists active brand promotions and can fetch a single promotion's detail via uuid. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling list tools by emphasizing the brand-promotion context and the read-only nature, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives clear context: read-only, no accept/decline endpoint, and how to present results. It tells the agent to treat promotions as opportunities and offer to create links, which is actionable guidance. It does not explicitly frame when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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