hac_promotion_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for this listing tool. It never states the operation is read-only, doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or permission requirements, and the word 'monitors' is left unexplained. Beyond naming the resource and filters, no runtime behavior is disclosed.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded in a single clean line, followed by an Args block that documents each parameter without filler. Blank lines add minor noise but no meaningful bloat.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the definition covers purpose and all three parameters adequately. It only misses minor operational details like pagination and what 'monitors' entails.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it names all three parameters and supplies the enumerated values for status ('PUBLISHED', 'UNPUBLISHED', 'MODIFIED', 'ALL') and lang ('zh' or 'en') that the schema lacks entirely. Only promo_group is described minimally as a PromotionGroup identifier.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists and monitors') and resource ('PromotionSourceRules in SAP Commerce Cloud'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling hac_promotion_scaffold. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the listing verb makes the intent 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative. However, the phrase 'active and draft' plus the status filter values (PUBLISHED/UNPUBLISHED/MODIFIED/ALL) imply the monitoring/inspection use case well enough for an agent to infer context.

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