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 covered. The description adds two facts the annotations do not carry: results are paginated, and output is filtered by consented promotion restrictions. It stops short of explaining page size behavior or what happens when consent restricts everything.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly vague in its phrasing ('consented promotion restrictions') but is not padded.

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 search tool with three undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and no description of the query field or pagination mechanics, the description leaves real gaps. An agent knows what the tool returns at a high level but not how to drive its filtering or paging correctly.

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% for three parameters (limit, query, cursor), so the description must carry the burden and does not. The word 'paginated' weakly hints at cursor usage, but nothing explains what 'query' matches against (name, ID, status?) or that 'limit' caps at 50.

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 ('Find') and resource ('promotions') plus scope ('in the connected account'), which cleanly separates it from the singular get_promotion sibling. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from list-like siblings such as list_assets or the write-side promotion tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_promotion, get_promotion_report, or preview_promotion, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only context given is that results are paginated and filtered by consent restrictions, which describes output shape rather than tool selection.

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