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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: pricing tiers (7d/$27, 30d/$72), a capacity limit of 5 per category, no auto-renewal, and the reassurance that featuring changes no ranking figure or order while listing stays free. That last point is important behavioral framing an agent would otherwise have to guess. It does not say what happens if the category argument is omitted, which is the one behavioral gap.

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 front-loaded with the definition, then pricing, then usage, so an agent can stop reading early and still act. The price and capacity details are dense but each carries decision-relevant information. The phrase describing page placement is slightly long-winded but not wasteful.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so ('per category, how many spots are open and when the next opens'). Pricing, capacity, and non-renewal are all covered. The gap is that category is optional (0 required parameters) yet the description never says whether omitting it returns all 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum of 19 categories, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that results are per category, which tells the agent the parameter acts as a scope filter rather than a required selector. It adds little beyond that, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 concrete resource (featured placements on affiliateprogramterms.com) and a concrete return (per category, how many spots are open and when the next opens). It defines what 'featured' means physically — top of category page and under the category on the home page — so an agent knows exactly what is being reported. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it differs from (featured_check_booking, featured_prepare_card), so differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: use when someone wants to promote their affiliate program to people comparing programs, or asks what featuring costs. That maps cleanly to real user intents. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to featured_check_booking for availability of a specific slot, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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