user_promo_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only echoes the HTTP method and path and gives a one-line resource list. Nothing is said about whether it is read-only (assumed from GET but not confirmed behaviorally), authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination semantics beyond the schema, or what the response contains. This is a near-total absence for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The text is short but not structured for an agent: it front-loads an HTTP verb/path snippet, then a Russian-language phrase, then unrelated metadata keys ('Тег', 'Спека'). It reads like a raw spec dump rather than a front-loaded functional description, and the mixed language/structure reduces clarity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, three parameters, and a large sibling tool set, the description would need to explain return shape, pagination behavior, and how it differs from promo-apply and admin-promo tools. Instead it provides only a raw endpoint reference and a resource label, leaving all contextually important information absent.

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 schema already documents 'limit', 'offset', and 'user_id' (including the admin-on-behalf-of semantics for user_id). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, when coverage is high the baseline is 3, which is what applies here.

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 is essentially a raw HTTP endpoint annotation ('GET /promo') followed by the Russian phrase 'Список промокодов пользователя' (list of user promo codes), plus tags and spec metadata. It does convey a verb+resource ('list user promo codes'), but the formatting is a raw API dump rather than a functional statement, and it offers no differentiation from the sibling tool 'user_promo_apply_by_code_get' or the many other promo-related tools. It is closer to a restated label than a genuine purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., user_promo_apply_by_code_get vs. this listing endpoint). The metadata tags ('Промокоды', 'user') hint at a category but provide no when-to-use instruction.

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