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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the result-filtering rule (already-joined and own programs are excluded), which is genuine behavioral context not in the annotations. It does not mention ordering, relevance, or how the public listing relates to any account state.

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 filler, and the positive scope statement is front-loaded before the exclusion constraint. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually and what it filters out. A brief note on result ordering or whether paging exists would close the remaining gap, but an agent can call this correctly as written.

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% for the single optional 'limit' parameter, including default and max, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no semantics about paging, ordering, or how limit interacts with the filtered result set; baseline 3 applies when the schema is complete.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Browse') with a clearly scoped resource ('publicly listed affiliate programs from other merchants') and states the eligibility condition ('you can join as a partner'). It implicitly separates itself from list_affiliate_programs and get_affiliate_program via the exclusion clause, though it never names those siblings.

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 exclusion clause ('Excludes programs you already belong to and your own programs') conveys the usage boundary well: this is the discovery surface, not the management surface. It stops short of explicitly naming list_affiliate_programs or join_affiliate_program as the follow-on tool, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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