Promotions Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the required OAuth scope 'read_discounts' and the API version '2025-03', both of which affect whether the call will succeed.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by the HTTP route, scope, and version. No filler; it is telegraphic but every line carries operational 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-resource GET with a fully documented schema and covered safety annotations, the essentials are present. However, the description says nothing about what a promotion record contains or how a missing/invalid id behaves (404), which is the remaining gap for a bare getter.

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 description coverage is 100%, so id, fields, and response_format are all documented at the schema level. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one promotion'), which clearly separates it from the sibling tiendanube_promotions_list retrieval of many. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the singular/plural pairing is 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?

The singular 'one promotion' plus the required id implicitly signals this is the single-record retrieval path versus the list tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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