pointsbet_promotions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that no auth is needed and provides a sample return shape, which is useful but not extensive. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds modest value beyond 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?

Three concise lines cover purpose, return format, and auth requirement. No wasted words, and each sentence carries distinct information. The trailing '...' and 'etc.' are minor but acceptable.

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 read-only tool with two optional params, the description covers the core aspects: what it returns, where it's used, a sample return structure, and auth requirements. Without an output schema, the return hint helps, and the annotations fill in safety guarantees. Slight lack of detail on pagination or filtering, but not critical.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any extra parameter-level context, so it relies fully on the schema, which meets the baseline but adds no bonus value.

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 it returns 'Live promotions for a display surface (carousel, etc.)', identifying both the resource (promotions) and the specific use case. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like pointsbet_promo_code, but the display-surface scope provides a distinct purpose.

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 phrase 'for a display surface' implies usage context (e.g., carousels), but there is no explicit comparison or exclusion of alternatives like pointsbet_promo_code or sportsbet_popular_promotions. It has implied context but no direct guidance on when to choose this tool.

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