wb_promotions_auto

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose side effects and return behavior; it only explains what WB auto-promotions are and why monitoring matters. It does not state whether this is read-only, what it returns, or what happens when called.

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 extremely short and front-loads the key scope ('Auto-promotions only') before the explanatory second sentence. It is compact with no structural clutter, though the benefit sentence is somewhat soft.

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?

With no output schema and two date parameters, the description still does not say what the call returns or how it differs operationally from sibling promotion tools. An agent would need to infer the output and behavior, which is a real gap for a monitoring tool among many promotion siblings.

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 already describes start/end as RFC3339 strings with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description does not add field-level guidance such as timezone, default range, or how the dates bound the auto-promotion data.

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 identifies the resource ('auto-promotions', type=auto) and the intent ('regular monitoring...prices from dropping'), but it never states a concrete API action like list/get/monitor. It is distinguishably scoped from sibling promotional tools, but the missing verb leaves the tool's operation partly to inference.

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 'Auto-promotions only (type=auto)' gives clear scope and the sentence about regular monitoring suggests a recurring use case. However, it does not name any alternative tool or state when not to use it, so the selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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