promotions_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds critical behavioral details: potential slowness, timeout (60s), hanging risk, and deprecation. 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?

Description is well-structured with warning first, then spec link. However, the spec URL is long and could be considered extraneous. Information density is high but every sentence 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?

Complete for a simple list tool with no parameters: provides performance warning, usage guidance, alternative suggestion, and spec reference. No output schema needed as return values are self-evident from action.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so description cannot add meaning beyond schema. However, it explains that the tool lists all promotions without filtering, which is the entire semantic context needed.

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?

Clearly states 'List ALL promotions in one non-paginated response (legacy)', explicit about the scope and legacy status, and distinguishes from the paged sibling tool promotions_list_paged.

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?

Explicitly advises to prefer promotions_list_paged in most cases, specifying when to use this tool ('only when you truly need every promotion at once and know the set is small').

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