list_promotions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It usefully discloses the default scope and that name is a partial match, but says nothing about pagination despite a page_size parameter, and gives no ordering or volume expectations.

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 very short and front-loads the scope default, with no wasted sentences beyond the redundant opening word 'Promotions.' The telegraphic fragment style is compact but slightly awkward.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. But for a list tool with four undocumented schema parameters and a sibling get_promotion, the absence of page_size semantics and any comparison against the single-promotion tool leaves it only minimally complete.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it explains scope, partial-name matching, and outlet_ids linkage reasonably well. However, page_size is completely undocumented, leaving one of four parameters without any semantic guidance.

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 is essentially the fragment 'Promotions.' plus filter notes, so the listing verb and resource come mostly from the tool name rather than the description. It is distinguishable from get_promotion only by inference, not by an explicit statement that this returns multiple 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?

It documents the scope values (current_upcoming default, past, all) but never says when to choose this tool over get_promotion or other list tools. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, only implied filtering behavior.

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