sportsbet_popular_promotions

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

The annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds 'Auth: none needed,' which is extra context. It also documents the exact return format, compensating for the lack of an output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three short lines: a purpose, a return type, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool; the description provides the return format and auth requirement, which is adequate given the annotations. However, it does not explain the behavior of optional parameters like limit and loggedIn beyond the schema, so it's not fully complete for complex use cases.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., 'Required — part of the URL path'). It only refers to 'promo provider + client' referring to provider and clientId.

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 trending/popular promotions for a provider and client, and specifies the return shape. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportsbet_event_markets or pointsbet_promotions by its focus on popular promotions. The verb 'Returns' and the structured output make the purpose unambiguous.

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. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred context (e.g., 'use when you need active promo campaigns'). This leaves the agent to infer from the name alone.

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