afl_content_promo_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It adds valuable context by specifying the exact return shape ({pageInfo, content:[{id, type:'promo', title, links:[{promoUrl, linkText}]}]}) and explicitly noting that authentication is not required ('Auth: none needed'). This goes beyond the annotations by describing the response structure and access requirements.

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 compact and well-structured: one clarifying sentence about the resource, a returns block, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is fully front-loaded with the purpose and gives essential technical details in a scannable format.

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 list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, return shape, and auth. The schema covers the parameters, so the description completes the picture by telling the caller what to expect in the response and that no auth is needed.

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 100% coverage: all three parameters (limit, tagNames, referenceExpression) have descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'promo / marketing cards' and the action as 'List', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like afl_content_promo_get, afl_content_text_list, and afl_content_video_list. The added detail about embedded CTAs (links[]) further clarifies what these cards contain.

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 for retrieving promo/marketing content, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when NOT to use this tool or what other tools might be better suited for different scenarios.

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