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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds only 'current' as a genuine behavioral trait (freshness of campaigns vs. historical), plus a payload summary that the output schema already carries. Useful but thin beyond what structured fields provide.

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, zero waste: purpose and payload first, then the sibling-routing guidance. Front-loaded and 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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, payload, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, and the per-parameter descriptions fully document the required store_id and explain that lat/lon are inert. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating the store scoping, so the baseline of 3 is correct 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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus a precise resource (7NOW promotion-campaign records) scoped to a store, and it enumerates the payload (headline, copy, terms, artwork, linked promotion). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from three sibling tools, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Names alternatives with the condition that selects each: sevennow_deals for item deals, sevennow_promotion for a single campaign, sevennow_stores to resolve a store id. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative routing, leaving nothing to inference.

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