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

With annotations covering the safety profile (destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description still adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot express: the call is a preview, it emits a confirmation link, and the merchant must confirm on that page for anything to change. That preview/confirmation flow is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the preview/confirmation explanation is tight and earns its place. But the 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' sentence is irrelevant to a tool with no monetary parameter and reads as copy-paste residue, costing the definition some conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the return behavior (a preview of the change plus a confirmation link) and the full parameter set is documented in the schema. The only gap is the never-answered question of how this relates to the sibling promotion tools.

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 explains kind, active, and promotion in detail, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail for this tool; worse, its 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' sentence refers to no parameter in this schema, so it contributes noise rather than meaning.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb pair and resource: 'Pause or resume a promotion.' An agent can grasp the intent instantly. However, it never names or contrasts the operation against siblings like promotions_edit, promotions_delete, or promotions_state, and the preview framing slightly muddies whether the tool itself performs the action.

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 discloses a critical usage constraint – the agent cannot complete the change, only the merchant can via the confirmation page – which is real routing guidance. But it never states when to choose this versus promotions_edit/delete, or when pausing is preferable to deleting, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative dimension is implied at best.

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