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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: 'Returns up to 50 programs creators can apply to via the applyUrl on each card' and explains that the verified badge is backed by 'droplinked's EAS attestation chain'. This gives the agent useful context about result limits and attestation semantics without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the primary purpose. It includes a useful example and the key guidance about verifiedBrand, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description mentions the applyUrl on each card, giving some return-shape context. It covers the main filtering dimensions, a usage example, and the attestation meaning. Given the tool's moderate complexity and rich annotations, the description is sufficient but does not fully elaborate on all possible result fields or pagination beyond the 50-item cap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, each already explaining its meaning (e.g., 'Vertical slug — fashion, beauty, tech, fitness, etc.'). The description adds an example invocation but does not provide any new parameter semantics beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra parametrical insight is given.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover droplinked affiliate programs by vertical, commission rate, payout type, and on-chain attestation status.' It identifies the resource (affiliate programs) and the filtering capabilities, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_inventory or find_merchant. The verb 'Discover' is specific and conveys the read-only nature.

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 description provides a concrete example ('a creator asks what fashion programs pay 15%+ with on-chain verified attestation? → call find_affiliate_programs(...)') which implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool. It also advises preferring verifiedBrand=true programs, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare directly to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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