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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the 'current account' scope and says nothing about default page size, result caps, filter combination behavior, or the sensitive-data gating implied by include_ban_details/include_contact_details.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but for a six-parameter, paginated listing tool it is under-specified rather than truly concise — brevity here costs information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a 6-param list tool with pagination and state filtering gives the agent no information about result volume, defaults, or when the enum filter applies. The description leaves the agent dependent entirely on the schema.

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 coverage is only 50%: page, limit and state have no descriptions at all, and the description supplies no compensating detail about defaults, max page size, or filter semantics. The two documented include_* flags carry more guidance than the description does.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('affiliates') with an explicit scope ('for the current account'), which is enough to separate it from list_campaigns, list_commissions, list_payouts and list_referrals by resource. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or state what it returns.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_dashboard_summary for aggregate counts vs. this for row-level listings), and no indication of pagination expectations. The only guidance lives in the schema, in the two include_* parameters.

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