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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the returned fields (partner codes, status values, lifetime earnings), but it does not address pagination, result limits, or authorization requirements beyond the implied program ownership.

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 definition is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and immediately follows with the key return fields. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and return values adequately. However, it omits the sibling differentiation that an agent needs to reliably choose this tool over list_affiliate_partnerships, and it says nothing about pagination or limits.

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%, and the schema already explains that program_id is the program ID returned by create_affiliate_program, including an example format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (partners/affiliates who applied to or joined your programs), so the basic action is clear. However, it never differentiates this tool from the close sibling list_affiliate_partnerships, leaving ambiguity about which side of the relationship is being listed.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_affiliate_partnerships or get_affiliate_partnership_stats. The phrase 'one of your programs' implies a program-owner context, but that is not spelled out as usage guidance.

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