list_promotions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the list filters to 'active' promotions, but does not mention pagination behavior, return format, permissions, or any side effects. For a listing tool this is a moderate gap, as the description does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or describe what fields are returned.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It uses clear, direct language and avoids redundancy.

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 listing tool with pagination, the description provides the essential purpose and the 'active' filter. However, without an output schema, it lacks details about the return structure, ordering, or whether any other filters (e.g., by type) are available. It is minimally viable but not rich in context.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It does not mention page or limit at all, though the schema includes defaults and ranges. The parameter names are self-explanatory, and the schema provides full type constraints, so this is acceptable but not ideal. Minimal compensation is provided by the description.

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 lists active promotions, deals, and discount coupons in the store. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (promotions), and distinguishes from siblings like create_coupon (which creates) and search_products (which searches). No ambiguity.

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 description implies usage when the user wants to view promotions, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. There is no exclusion of expired promotions or cross-reference to create_coupon for creation, so guidance is minimal yet not misleading.

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