betr_promotions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the baseline transparency is high. The description adds valuable context by stating 'Auth: none needed' and explicitly showing the return structure, which goes beyond the structured 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 concise and front-loaded, with three terse components: purpose, return shape, and authentication requirement. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy 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-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns (including a precise JSON structure), that no auth is needed, and the scope ('active'). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter explanations since there are none to define, and the return format is provided instead.

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 (active promotions) and its key metadata fields (title, end date, linked master events), effectively differentiating it from broader tools like betr_all_promotions. Although no explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' is used, the meaning is unambiguous from the context and the 'Returns' clause.

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 by specifying 'Active promotions' and notes 'Auth: none needed,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling alternatives (e.g., betr_all_promotions or pointsbet_promotions). The active vs. all distinction is present but not framed as a selection guideline.

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