get_promotions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it frames the scope as the authenticated seller, warns that an empty list is legitimate (a common false-negative trap), and describes the return shape and pagination. It does not mention rate limits, permission nuances, or whether the listing is cached, so it falls short of fully rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then routing, then behavioral caveat, then return shape — a logical order with no filler. It runs slightly long by restating return fields the caller could not otherwise know, but every sentence carries 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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, empty-result caveat, and the return shape well enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (permissions, rate limits) are minor for a listing endpoint; it stops just short of fully complete.

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 the schema already documents limit, offset, status, and promotion_type in detail. The description restates the candidate/started semantics and the limit/offset pagination but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 ('List') and resource (promotions/campaigns offered to the authenticated seller) and scopes it to what the seller can join vs. what is running. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by naming get_promotion_items and add_item_to_promotion as the follow-up actions, so an agent can tell the three apart without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use this to discover discount opportunities') and routes to the correct alternatives with their distinct purposes: inspect participants via get_promotion_items, join via add_item_to_promotion. The when/when-not distinction is unambiguous.

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