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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include partner code, approval status, and commission details, which is modest but real added value. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the returned fields enumerated at the end. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no input parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back — and it does list the key fields. It falls short only on volume/ordering behavior, which matters for a tool that could return every joined program.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

A specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programs you have joined as a partner'), plus the fields surfaced per program. The phrase 'joined as a partner' implicitly separates it from list_affiliate_programs and list_affiliate_partners, but neither sibling is named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 phrase 'you have joined as a partner' implies the right context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (list_affiliate_programs, discover_affiliate_programs, get_affiliate_program, join/leave_affiliate_program). The agent must work out the routing itself.

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