get_promotion_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the return content (items with discount details), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, though the 'get_' prefix implies this. The description adds some transparency but not comprehensive details.

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 immediately states the action and the key return information. There is no redundant filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 straightforward retrieval tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the resource scope and return details. It could explicitly mention pagination behavior, but the page and limit parameters already imply this. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

All parameters (id, page, limit) already have descriptive schema entries, so the description does not need to add much. It does not provide any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves products/variations/categories attached to a promotion, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_promotion or list_promotions by focusing on the items attached to a promotion and their discount details.

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 conveys a clear use case: fetching items attached to a promotion. It does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like get_combo_items or get_promotion, but the context is clear enough. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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