afl_content_promo_list

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (despite returning pageInfo), side effects, or authorization requirements. The return structure is given, but critical behavioral context is missing for a read-only list tool with filtering parameters.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but omits some useful detail (e.g., pagination behavior). The structure includes a clear return shape, which aids understanding.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (none documented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to use filter parameters or handle pagination, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the parameters (limit, tagNames, referenceExpression). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent guessing on usage.

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 the tool lists promo/marketing cards with embedded CTAs, and provides the return structure. This distinguishes it from sibling content list tools like afl_content_photo_list or afl_content_text_list, as it specifies the resource type (promo cards).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool name and description imply it is for promo cards, and the presence of sibling tools like afl_content_photo_list offers some context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mentions, but usage is reasonably clear.

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