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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already tell the agent this is a safe read from an open source. The description adds that the payload is published official terms structured as separate paragraphs, which is some extra context, but with an output schema present it mostly restates the return shape rather than disclosing new behavioral traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the parameter-source note. Efficient and nearly waste-free, though the first sentence's phrasing ('One ... promotion's published official terms') is slightly awkward.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope, content, and the parameter source. For a single-param detail tool this is nearly complete; only an explicit example of the path value would improve it.

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?

The single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does so by explaining where the value comes from (the raisingcanes_promotions tool), which is meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type, though it gives no syntax or format example.

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/resource: the published official terms of ONE Raising Cane's promotion, with the exact content (title, official-rules text: eligibility, prize details, effective date). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by noting the path originates from raisingcanes_promotions, so an agent can tell it apart without opening either schema.

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 clause 'Path comes from raisingcanes_promotions' establishes the prerequisite and implies this is a follow-up detail call to the listing tool, which is clear usage context. It does not state explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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