kfc_promotions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return contents (id, names, description, auto vs. redemption code), the meaning of 'public' and 'current,' and the key edge case of an empty list for a store with no active promotions. This is a strong disclosure for a read-only lookup, though it omits error behavior for invalid store numbers.

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 relatively short but contains redundancy: the first sentence ('Get one KFC restaurant's current public promotions') is nearly repeated at the start of the second sentence ('Returns one restaurant's current public promotions'). The third sentence about empty list behavior is valuable. The repetition makes it less tightly structured than it could be.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it specifies the exact fields returned, the condition for which promotions qualify, and the behavior when none exist. It does not cover other potential edge cases like invalid store_number, but the schema hints at the source of valid values, and the empty-list behavior covered the main ambiguity.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for store_number, including its source (/kfc/stores or /kfc/nearby). The description adds only that the tool retrieves promotions 'for one KFC restaurant,' which is already implied by the parameter name and schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter detail is offered.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get one KFC restaurant's current public promotions.' It is explicit about scope (one restaurant, public promotions) and enumerates return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling kfc_promotion (singular), relying on the plural name and store-level framing rather than naming the alternative.

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need a specific restaurant's public promotions. It also clarifies the empty-list behavior rather than error, which helps set expectations. But it does not state when not to use it, nor does it reference any sibling tools such as kfc_promotion or kfc_menu, so routing guidance is minimal.

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