get_promotion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. It adds substantial context beyond the annotations: auth is 'injected server-side, never by the model', calls are 'throttled to stay under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap and retried on 429/5xx', and non-2xx replies are mapped to 401/403/404/422 meanings. This gives the agent a realistic model of failure modes and operational constraints.

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 long but rigorously organized into labeled sections (Behavior, Returns, Use when) and front-loaded with the 🟢 READ-ONLY badge and endpoint. Every sentence earns its place: auth injection, rate-limit behavior, retry policy, and error semantics are all operational facts an agent needs. There is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing. The schema covers the parameter fully, annotations cover the safety profile, and because there is no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape ('HTTP <status> followed by the LearnWorlds JSON response body') and how errors surface as tool errors. The tool is complete as documented.

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% — the single required parameter id is documented as 'Promotion Id' in the schema. The description only restates that the tool targets 'the promotion specified by the provided promotion id' without adding format, validation, or usage nuance. Per the high-coverage baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource: 'Get promotion. Returns the promotion specified by the provided promotion id.' The endpoint path (GET /v2/promotions/{id}) and the contrast with the sibling list tool get_promotions make the tool's role unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from create_promotion (write) and get_promotions (list) without needing to open schemas.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting. Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' This states both the positive context and the exclusion, and it names concrete alternatives including create_coupons_promotion_bulk, create_coupon_promotion, create_promotion, get_coupon_usage, and get_promotions. Nothing is left to inference.

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