user_promo_apply_by_code_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or whether redeeming a code is one-shot. 'Применить промокод' implies a state-changing redemption while the exposed verb is GET, and that tension is never resolved.

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?

It is short, but the space is spent on raw path, tag, and spec-name boilerplate rather than on actionable content. The one meaningful clause is buried mid-line after the URL.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain the redemption result and side effects, and it does neither. It also omits the admin-impersonation behavior implied by user_id, leaving an agent unable to call this safely.

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 the code/limit/offset/user_id parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the code format or the admin impersonation semantics of user_id, so this is 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?

The Russian phrase 'Применить промокод' (apply a promo code) plus the raw path 'GET /promo/apply/{code}' conveys a verb and resource, so the intent is decipherable. However it gives no scope or differentiation from siblings like user_promo_get, and the '_get' suffix collides with what is an action endpoint, leaving the agent to infer whether this reads or applies a code.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as user_promo_get. The 'Тег: Промокоды / Спека: user' lines are generator metadata, not usage direction.

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