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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing of current promotions and names some returned fields, but says nothing about authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or how results are ordered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficiently structured, though its terseness comes at the cost of missing guidance rather than being overlong.

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 simple paginated list tool with an output schema, the description still needs to explain pagination and its relationship to sibling promotion tools. It leaves both unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap despite the tool's low complexity.

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%, and the description does not explain the limit or offset parameters at all. Their names and defaults in the schema give basic hints, but the description adds no meaning about pagination semantics, maximum limits, or what happens when they are omitted.

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 identifies the resource (current Migros promotions) and the data it contains (discount, dates, product ids), so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it lacks a clear verb and does not distinguish this general promotions list from siblings like weekend_promotions or promotion_detail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus promotion_detail, promotion_details, or weekend_promotions, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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