delhaize_fetch_promotions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it flags 'Not read only', names the exact write target (JSON files in promos_inbox/<today>/), and bounds the side effect ('never edits anything else and never judges products'). It lacks detail on auth requirements and rate limiting/network behavior.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: purpose and destination directory come first, followed by the write-behavior caveat and the return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the inline return-shape enumeration is somewhat bullet-like prose.

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?

Since there is no output schema, spelling out the return object ({pages, tiles, api_bodies, out_dir, stopped, next_step}) is necessary and helpful, and the write destination is explicit. Auth prerequisites and pagination semantics for max_pages remain unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter max_pages (default 40) is never explained in the description. The mention of 'each page' and a 'stopped' return field hints at pagination but does not clarify what max_pages controls or what happens when it is reached, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (read/fetch) and a specific resource (this week's public Delhaize promotions listing) plus the side effect (saving raw page data into promos_inbox/<today>/). The resource domain is unambiguous against siblings like delhaize_list_receipts or delhaize_fetch_new_receipts, which deal with receipts rather than promotions.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies: use it to read the current week's public promotions using store context from the saved profile, and it explicitly scopes responsibility by saying parsing/judging products is left to the caller's own code. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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