teasers

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a real trait beyond structured fields: the endpoint returns HTTP 500 server-side while echoing back the recovered parameters. That is useful, but it is phrased ambiguously (does data still come back?) and says nothing about read-only nature, authentication, or guest scoping implications.

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?

It is very short, but the front-loaded content is a bracketed reliability meta-note rather than the tool's purpose, and the note's wording ("answers HTTP 500 server-side with the recovered parameters") is confusing enough to require re-reading.

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 described, but the definition still leaves the sole input undocumented, the purpose underspecified, and the failure-mode implications (retry? fall back to promotions?) unstated for a tool that reportedly errors out.

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 single parameter fulfillment_methods (default DELIVERY) is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains its meaning, allowed values, or effect on the result. The phrase "the recovered parameters" is the only nod to inputs and it does not clarify the parameter.

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?

"Marketing teasers for guests" largely restates the tool name plus a scope qualifier; there is no verb (list? fetch? render?) and no differentiation from neighbouring tools such as promotions, weekend_promotions, home_layout or display_panels that an agent would have to choose between.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of sibling tools, and no guidance on what an agent should do instead given the stated HTTP 500 behavior. The only implicit signal is a warning that the call may fail, which is a caveat rather than usage guidance.

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