wb_promotions_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It adds useful semantics about what auto vs regular means, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, pagination/limit behavior, return shape, or what the all_promo=false default implies at call time.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before the type semantics and a use-case sentence. The '[P0]' prefix and fragmented wording are minor noise, but nothing is redundant.

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?

The description is adequate for a list tool with a well-covered input schema: required period params are implied and promo_type semantics are supplied. However, with no output schema and a large sibling family, it does not describe the returned data or state when other promotions tools are preferable, leaving some context gaps.

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 coverage is high (83%), so the baseline is 3; the description improves on the enum alone by explaining what 'auto' and 'regular' mean for WB promotions. The shorthand 'type' instead of 'promo_type' is slightly ambiguous but recoverable from the schema.

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 as WB promotions and scopes it to a time period ('for a period'), and it explains the two promo types, so an agent can tell this is a promotions listing tool. It does not explicitly state 'list' or differentiate it from sibling tools like wb_promotions_auto or wb_promotions_details, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Monitor auto ones' implies the intended primary use is tracking auto promotions, and the type definitions help an agent choose a filter. The description gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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