promotions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the content (active promotions, collections, catalog links) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how results are returned. For a tool with no side-effect annotations, some explicit behavioral context is missing.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core subject and the associated output format (links to catalog). It is efficiently sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it leaves some behavioral and usage context unstated.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and hints at response contents. However, it does not explain how 'promotions' differ from 'collections', whether results are filtered by store, or what an agent should do with the catalog links. Given no annotations and no usage guidance, the completeness is moderate.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered by the empty properties object. With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics; the baseline of 4 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 identifies the resource as active promotions and collections, and mentions catalog links, making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'returns', but the noun-phrase style still conveys what the tool provides. It is distinguishable from sibling tools such as recommendations and category_products, though not by name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like recommendations or category_products. The description implies it is for showing current promotions and collections, but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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