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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful provenance behavior: results include the vendor page each figure was read from and the date it was read, which tells the agent the data is sourced and time-stamped. It slightly over-promises by citing 'lowest payout minimum' as a query it answers, though no payout filter or sort parameter exists.

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, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage triggers and return contents. The mid-sentence list of example questions is long but each item earns its place by mapping to a real filter; nothing is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (commission, recurring vs one-time, cookie window, minimum payout, payout method, network, source page, date). For a 5-parameter, zero-required search tool this is nearly complete; it omits result ordering and whether limit/total counts are reported.

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 80%, so the schema already explains query, category, recurring and min_cookie_days well, including the 'never expires' edge case. The description only restates these concepts as use cases and adds no format, matching or sorting semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up affiliate, referral and partner program terms') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (commission type, cookie window, payout minimum, category). It does not name the sibling get_program, so an agent must infer the difference between multi-program search and single-program lookup.

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?

Gives concrete trigger questions ('which companies have an affiliate program', 'which pay recurring commission', 'longest cookie window', 'compare affiliate programs in a category') that map directly onto the recurring, min_cookie_days and category filters. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to get_program for single-vendor detail.

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