list_promotions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the metadata-only behavior, which is valuable, but it does not mention pagination (despite page/limit parameters) or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or sorting. The disclosure is partial.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second gives a direct pointer to the alternative. Information is front-loaded and every word 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?

The description covers the essential list-vs-detail distinction but leaves gaps with respect to other siblings like get_active_promotions and search_promotions. It also does not compensate for the lack of an output schema by describing the return structure or pagination behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, such as how page/limit relate to the 'all' claim or the purpose of include_guide. The schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'List' with a specific resource ('all promotions/discounts of the site') and adds the scope 'metadata only', which differentiates it from the sibling get_promotion for full details. This is a precise and non-tautological statement.

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?

It explicitly provides an alternative: 'Use get_promotion for full details'. This gives clear when-to-use guidance for the primary distinction. However, it does not mention other relevant siblings like search_promotions or get_active_promotions, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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