get_promo_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only check (implied by 'Check'), returns specific data (claimed and remaining slots), and explicitly states 'No authentication required'. It lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but covers essential operational context.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second details the return values, and the third covers authentication. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete, covering purpose, return data, and authentication. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structured data vs. plain text) and potential errors, which would enhance completeness for agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the context of the promo (free PRO tier for first 100 agents) and what data is returned, which goes beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates with meaningful semantics.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Check') and resource ('launch promo status'), with explicit details about the free PRO tier offer and what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_activation_status' or 'get_payment_activation' by focusing on promo status rather than other activation types.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool—to check promo status for the free PRO tier launch—and mentions 'No authentication required' as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as distinguishing from 'get_activation_status' for general activation checks.

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