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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond them: sales stats are only present 'when a sync stored them', the last-error field is exposed, and connect/disconnect requires an API key and lives in the dashboard rather than here.

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?

Front-loads the identity of the resource before the long field list, and every clause names a returned field rather than padding. The semicolon-chained enumeration is dense but each element earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full return-shape burden and does so comprehensively, including the conditional nature of the sales stats. The redirect for connect/disconnect closes the remaining gap, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents app_id including the 'omit to use your most recently added project' default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so this is the baseline 3.

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+resource (get the project's affiliate program connection) and enumerates exactly what it surfaces: provider, program id, status, affiliate counts, revenue/commission, last sync/error, signup approval mode, and sales stats. An agent can distinguish it from sync_program_now and set_signup_approval_mode without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the write-side operations (connecting/disconnecting a program) away to the dashboard URL because they need an API key, which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. It does not, however, state when to prefer it over read siblings like get_partners or get_autopilot.

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