popeyes_promotions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable data semantics: points_multiplier and bonus_points are mutually exclusive, and empty start_date/end_date means no published window restriction rather than permanent activity. It also clarifies public vs member-specific state, though it does not cover rate limits or response envelope.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then sibling differentiation and edge-case semantics. Slight redundancy: the first two sentences repeat 'Popeyes Rewards' bonus-points promotion catalog,' but the rest is dense and 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?

For a read-only list with three optional pagination/market parameters and no output schema, the description covers content scope, exclusions, and key field interpretations. It stops short of describing the full returned page structure, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% for limit, market, and offset, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; its semantic notes concern response fields, not the input parameters.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Popeyes Rewards' bonus-points promotion catalog.' It explicitly distinguishes the tool from /popeyes/offers and /popeyes/quests with concrete semantic differences (priced menu deals vs multi-step challenges), so an agent can tell siblings apart.

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 directly ('distinct from /popeyes/offers (priced menu deals) and /popeyes/quests (multi-step challenges)') and states a when-not: this is public CMS content, not a signed-in member's own applied-promotions state. It does not phrase an explicit 'use X when' directive, but the context is sufficient.

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