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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope (items plus offer type, terms, run dates) but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape beyond what structured fields provide, so it is only modest value-add.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the covered items first and the promotion metadata second, with zero filler or redundancy.

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 the annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a read-only detail tool; the only shortfall is the absence of guidance on how it relates to sibling promotion/deal 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 skip, limit, promo_id, and store_id are fully documented in the schema, including provenance of promo_id and store_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description clearly states what is returned from a promotion: every item the 7NOW promotion covers in a store, plus offer type, terms, and run dates. The resource and scope are identifiable, though no explicit verb is used and no sibling (e.g., sevennow_deals or sevennow_offers) is named for contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of promo_id and store_id signals that this is called for a specific promotion in a specific store. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives such as sevennow_deals or sevennow_offers, leaving routing to inference.

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