list_hubs_promoted

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the 'promoted' scoping and the GET endpoint; it does not mention authorization, filtering semantics, or response characteristics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short lines with no filler: the purpose sentence is front-loaded and the endpoint line is a compact, useful reference. Every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, non-destructive operation with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of any explanation of what 'promoted' means or when this variant should be preferred over sibling hub-list tools.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the empty schema is fully self-descriptive. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds nothing unnecessary.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Get the hubs which are promoted.' The 'promoted' qualifier separates it from generic list_hubs and similar hub-list siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling nor define what 'promoted' means.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_hubs, list_hubs_home_recently_added, or list_hubs_continue_watching. The only usage signal is the resource name itself; no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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