betr_all_promotions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific return format and explicitly states 'Auth: none needed', providing useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 highly concise, containing only essential information: the scope of results, the fields returned, the return type, and authentication requirements. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundant detail.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is complete. It includes the return structure (crucial since no output schema exists), the scope, and the auth requirement. Combined with the annotations, it gives an agent sufficient understanding to invoke and interpret the tool 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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the lack of filters by stating 'All visible promotions', which implies a broad unfiltered query, adding value for understanding the parameterless interface.

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 returns all visible promotions with fields like name, description, and dates. The tool name 'betr_all_promotions' reinforces the all-inclusive scope, and the return structure is explicitly given, which distinguishes it from narrower promotion tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as betr_promotions or pointsbet_promotions. The description only states what it does, with no context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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