raisingcanes_promotion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states what is returned (title and official-rules text as separate paragraphs in publication order), promises fidelity to the published page, and explicitly discloses the 404 outcome for expired, mistyped, or absent paths. This is strong coverage for a simple read-only lookup.

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 four sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds needed detail: return contents, source of the path parameter, and error behavior. Every sentence 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how the parameter should be obtained, and what happens on failure. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema by specifying that paths are sourced from GET /raisingcanes/promotions entries and by warning that some index entries carry an empty path. This helps an agent select a valid path value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Raising Cane's promotion's terms.' It clearly distinguishes this detail-lookup tool from the sibling raisingcanes_promotions by referencing that endpoint as the source of paths and by focusing on official rules text rather than a list of promotions.

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 gives clear workflow context: promotion paths come from GET /raisingcanes/promotions entries, so an agent knows to call the list endpoint first and then this tool with a selected path. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the source-of-paths instruction implies the intended usage clearly.

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