promo_code_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, the description only states the action ('get products') without disclosing behavior like whether expired promo codes fail, rate limits, country/language effects on results, or the output structure. For a read operation with no annotations, key behavioral details beyond the obvious lookup are missing.

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 description is a single efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and stops—no padding 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?

For a tool with 3 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. The absence of an output schema means return-format expectations are unspecified, and the description doesn't cover edge cases (expired/invalid codes). Given the breadth of sibling tools and no annotations, more behavioral and return details would strengthen completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters have inline descriptions plus the promo_code param includes a concrete extraction example with a real URL and code (A31M10S4V50SOU). The description itself doesn't add param-level detail, but the schema rich descriptions plus the illustrative example satisfy the baseline. The country param uniquely clarifies it controls domain, language, and currency simultaneously.

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 the tool gets products offered by an Amazon promo code—specific verb (get) plus resource (products by promo code). It's distinguishable from siblings like product_details (product by ASIN), deals, or best_sellers, though it could explicitly name which sibling to prefer for promo-based lookups. Clear but modest differentiation.

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 description implies usage context (when you have a promo code from an Amazon /promocode URL) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Among 18 product-related siblings, no guidance is given on when the user should choose this over product_offers or deal_products. The promo code extraction example is helpful context but not comparison guidance.

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