get_promotion_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact API endpoint (GET /v1/promotions/{promotion_id}) and the return structure (a dict with specific fields), which are useful behavioral traits. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but the tool is a simple read-only lookup and the description provides sufficient transparency beyond minimal requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections (用途, API, 回傳結構), front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, and every section provides valuable information. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity, and the use of bullets and labels improves scannability.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, when to use, the underlying API, and the return structure. It does not need to explain return values further since it lists the key fields. The level of detail is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with a clear description (promotion_id from list_promotions or search_promotions). The tool description adds no additional semantic details about the parameter itself beyond reaffirming the 'known promotion_id' usage context. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve the complete details of a single promotion, including discount rules, applicable products, and usage restrictions. It specifies the resource (a single promotion by ID) and differentiates itself from listing/searching siblings by emphasizing 'single' and 'known promotion_id'.

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 explicitly states when to use: when the promotion_id is known, to get all fields. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the schema's parameter description (promotion_id from list_promotions or search_promotions) provides related context. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than full 'when/when-not/alternatives'.

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