athena_promotion_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the tool covering both 'historical PROMOTION.1 and current PROMOTION.2 semantics', which explains a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose other important traits such as read-only nature, default limit, ordering, or pagination, so it only partially compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 sentence, direct, and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It contains no filler words and conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what a 'receipt' is, what the output looks like, the meaning of 'unified runtime promotion receipts', or how the limit parameter affects results. An agent would likely need additional information to use this tool confidently.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its only parameter 'limit', and the description does not mention it at all. With such low schema coverage, the description was required to compensate but fails to explain the parameter's meaning, default behavior, or impact. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no value beyond 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 clearly states the tool 'List recent persisted unified runtime promotion receipts', which includes a specific verb and resource. It also adds scope by mentioning historical PROMOTION.1 and current PROMOTION.2 semantics, distinguishing it from other promotion-related tools like athena_promotion_get and athena_promotion_replay. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it falls 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies a usage case via the word 'recent' but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. This is similar to the 'Update shared drive settings' example which received a 2 for lack of guidance.

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