athena_promotion_replay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: using the matching historical evaluator version, checking receipt determinism, and notably not re-querying the external provider. This is above-average for an MCP tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds meaningful information.

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 single-parameter replay tool, the description covers purpose, key behavioral constraints, and the source of inputs. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema make this a minor gap.

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. It implies that run_id identifies a stored PROMOTION.1 or PROMOTION.2 predicate, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter's provenance, format, or how to discover valid run_ids. This is partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb (Replay) and a specific resource (stored PROMOTION.1 or PROMOTION.2 predicate). It clearly identifies the tool's niche among many replay siblings by specifying the predicate types and historical evaluator matching.

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 provides clear context on usage: it replays a stored predicate from frozen inputs. The statement 'it does not independently re-query the external provider' gives an implicit when-not-to-use signal, but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit comparison.

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