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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful scoping constraint that participants are not exposed and nothing is published, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters, nor about the cost of fetching a full promotion.

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?

Two short sentences with the read operation front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately tight, though given the undocumented parameters it is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

A four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, yet the description explains neither the section selector, the limit/cursor paging, nor what the returned promotion data looks like. The negative boundaries are helpful but insufficient to call this correctly with confidence.

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 0% across all four parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden — and it names none of them. The section enum (content, rules, security, design, prizes, quiz, etc.) and the limit/cursor pagination contract are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent to guess that sections are selectively fetchable.

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?

"Read the saved promotion details" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (saved promotion), and the word "saved" implicitly contrasts with preview/render siblings that operate on unsaved drafts. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when, but an agent can identify the tool's core operation.

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 implies usage (fetch a promotion by its id) and adds two negative boundaries — it does not expose participants and does not publish. However it never states when to pick this over list_promotions, get_promotion_report, or preview_promotion, and gives no prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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