Get promotion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the output content (products, restrictions, usage) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or error conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key output categories without filler. Every word adds value.

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-get tool with read-only annotations and one fully documented parameter, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and expected return categories. No output schema exists, but the mention of products, restrictions, and usage gives a reasonable picture of the return payload.

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 sole parameter promotion_id is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Promotion UUID'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action (get) on a specific resource (one promotion) and lists the detail categories (products, restrictions, usage), making it easy to distinguish from list/create/update operations. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with sibling tools like list_promotions.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving detailed information on a single promotion, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_promotions or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on alternative tools for bulk listing or mutations.

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