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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the workspace-scoping and parameter-provenance context; it says nothing about pagination defaults or result shape, which the annotations do not cover.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the dependency hint. Every clause earns its place.

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, so the description should ideally explain what a 'promocode list' contains and how it differs from promocode codes, yet it omits return-value context entirely. For a straightforward read-only list tool with full annotation and schema coverage, this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 all six parameters (sort, limit, order, offset, search, workspace_id) are already documented with defaults and enum meanings. The description's only added value is the provenance of workspace_id, which is marginal over the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 списки промокодов воркспейса'), so the agent knows this fetches promocode lists scoped to a workspace. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like get_promocode_codes or get_promocode_list_quizzes, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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 note that 'workspace_id берётся из get_workspace_list' is a useful chaining hint, giving implied context for how to call it. But there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing away from the sibling promocode tools, so usage is only implied.

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