Promotions List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema information: the required OAuth scope (read_discounts), the API version (2025-03), and the response envelope. The one gap is pagination behavior limits, though the page param documents those.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by compact labeled lines for endpoint, scope, version, and return shape. The 'HTTP: GET /promotions' line is somewhat boilerplate given the tool name, but the rest is dense and earns its place.

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 read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description supplies the auth scope and the exact response envelope (count, page, per_page, has_more, next_page, items), which is the main thing an agent would otherwise lack. Only the relationship to coupons/promotions_get remains unaddressed.

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 all four parameters (page, per_page, fields, response_format) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List automatic promotions') and clarifies the resource with concrete examples (2x1, 3x2, volume discounts), which helps distinguish automatic promotions from coupon-style discounts. It does not explicitly name the closest siblings (tiendanube_promotions_get, tiendanube_coupons_list), so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the 'automatic promotions' qualifier — an agent can infer this is the collection-level read for promotions. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no pointer to promotions_get for a single promotion, and no mention of how this differs from coupons_list.

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