afl_content_promo_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It provides a sample return structure, which is helpful, but does not disclose idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a simple get, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Two short, clear sentences: one for purpose and one for return structure. No wasted words; front-loaded with essential information.

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 simple get tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return structure well. However, it omits details on error handling and the purpose of the 'limit' parameter, which could cause confusion.

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 description mentions 'id' implicitly via the return sample but provides no explanation for the 'limit' parameter (default 1). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema for 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?

The description clearly states 'Get a single promo content item by id,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'afl_content_promo_list' (list vs single) and other content types (photo, text, video).

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 (when you have an id, use this) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., 'Use afl_content_promo_list to search or list promos'). No context or exclusions are provided.

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