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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, return value, pagination, auth, or any behavioral traits; it only reports a cost. This is fully inadequate for a tool with no annotation fallback.

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 short, but its two sentences do not earn their place: one repeats the title and the other is about billing cost. Nothing is front-loaded about the actual functionality. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative.

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?

A paginated lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations requires the description to explain what it returns and how the parameters relate. The description provides none of this, so the tool cannot be invoked correctly without guesswork.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (id, count, cursor) beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify how the parameters relate to the tool's behavior.

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 'User Affiliates Group: User' basically restates the title without adding a verb; an agent still cannot tell what the tool does. The billing note is not a functional description. It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling get_* tools.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what it is for, or which alternative tools might be better suited. The description only mentions group/category and billing, leaving all usage decisions to the name and schema.

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