promotion_detail

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only lookup, whether authentication is required, what happens with an invalid or expired promotion id, or any rate/caching behavior.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded. Slightly awkward phrasing and an under-informative parenthetical keep it from a 5, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there is only one parameter. Still, with zero schema coverage on that parameter and a confusingly similar sibling tool, the description falls short of what an agent needs to invoke this confidently.

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 0%, so the single required 'promotion_id' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by naming the parameter and indicating its provenance ('from promotions'), but adds nothing about format, validity, or failure behavior for an unknown id.

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 says it returns the detail of a single promotion identified by id, which is a recognizable verb+resource. However, the sibling list contains both 'promotions' and 'promotion_details', and the description never explains how this tool differs from 'promotion_details' (plural), leaving real ambiguity about which one to call.

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 parenthetical '(from promotions)' hints that ids come from the promotions listing, which is a light implied workflow. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and, critically, no disambiguation from the near-identical 'promotion_details' sibling.

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