raisingcanes_promotions

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the tool simply returns the entire index (including past promotions) and calls out the meaningful quirk that some entries have empty paths because the site links expired promotions back to the homepage—explicitly labeling this as expected behavior rather than a bug. This kind of disambiguation is high‑value transparency and goes beyond anything the structured data supplies.

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 concise yet complete. It opens with a one-sentence high-level summary, then expands with concrete examples of the returned categories, the chaining to the detail endpoint, and the crucial empty-path edge case. Every sentence earns its place and there is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 no-input, no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably complete. It conveys the exact scope of the index, the grouping behavior, how entries connect to follow-up calls, and how to handle the one non-intuitive edge case. Given the complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, nothing else an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description naturally cannot add parameter meaning. The description focuses on output semantics (the index structure, category headings, path usage) rather than any inputs. Per the calibration, zero parameters merits a baseline of 4, and the description does not have to compensate for any undocumented schema fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Browse Raising Cane's promotions index') and goes on to detail exactly what the tool returns: a full index of current and past sweepstakes, giveaways, and other promotions grouped by the site's own headings. It explicitly links to the sibling tool raisingcanes_promotion for per-promotion detail, clearly distinguishing the list tool from the detail tool.

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 well: it positions the tool as the index entry point and explains that each entry chains into the promotion detail tool for official rules. It tells users that an empty path means the promotion is expired and should be treated as unresolvable, which is contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use condition or list the alternative tool by name in a direct 'use X instead' form, stopping one step short of full explicitness.

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