get_product_promotion

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any side effects, error handling, or whether the tool might return null if no promotion exists. It also does not mention any required permissions or rate limits, leaving the agent with minimal insight beyond the action itself.

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 is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose. There is no unnecessary detail or redundancy, making it appropriately brief for a simple retrieval tool.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'promotion details' includes, how to interpret the response, or any edge cases like missing promotions. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description needs to explain the parameters. It mentions 'product PLU' and 'store', which maps to the plu and store_id parameters, but adds no format, constraints, or examples. The description essentially restates the parameter names without providing additional semantics.

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 retrieves promotion details for a product PLU in a store, specifying both the resource (promotion) and the scope (product and store). It distinguishes from siblings like get_product_info which presumably returns general product details, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_product_info or search_products. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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