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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by explaining the 'MODELLED value per referral', ranking, and pagination, which are important non-obvious traits. It does not explicitly mention side-effect safety or rate limits, but 'search and filter' strongly implies a read-only directory operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, followed by concrete usage examples and the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.

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 search tool with many optional filters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, common intents, ranking, and pagination. Minor gaps remain, such as not describing the per-item fields in the returned list and not spelling out how to discover allowed enum values, though the schema points to list_networks and list_categories.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters in detail. The description reinforces which filters matter most (category, network, recurring, minimum value) but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 searches and filters an affiliate program directory, listing concrete comparison dimensions (network, commission, cookie window, modelled value). It also names the exact user intents it serves, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that retrieve a single program, stats, or enum lists.

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 gives explicit use cases: best/highest-paying affiliate programs and filtering by category, network, recurring vs one-time, or minimum value. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like get_affiliate_program, but the stated use cases are clear enough for an agent to route to this tool.

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