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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the data-provenance dependency on get_promocode_list, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about the size or shape of the returned code set.

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 zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the dependency note follows immediately. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, nine parameters and heavy sibling overlap, the description covers the essential identity and the list_id source but omits the return shape (array of codes?) and pagination semantics. Adequate minimum, not complete.

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 every one of the nine parameters is already documented in the schema, including enums for sort/order. The description only adds provenance for list_id; it does not explain interaction between filters (e.g., used + quiz_id + search) beyond what the schema says. 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 ('Возвращает коды конкретного списка промокодов'), which cleanly separates it from get_promocode_list (returns lists, not codes). The remaining ambiguity is that it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_promocode_list_quizzes, which also returns code-related data.

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?

Gives one concrete prerequisite — list_id comes from get_promocode_list — which is real usage guidance. But it offers no when/when-not guidance relative to the many sibling promocode tools, and doesn't mention that quiz_id filtering or used/search filters exist for narrowing results.

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