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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the data is restricted to affiliate networks only (AWIN, CityAds, Rakuten) and the returned metrics are pedidos, itens, comissão and GMV — valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the networks, the breakdown dimension, examples and the metrics, with no filler. Everything stated carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter breakdown with full schema coverage, the description covers scope (affiliate networks only) and return contents, which compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps remain: no note on ordering/limits or whether empty advertisers are included.

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%, with days/start_date/end_date each documented including defaults and the days-vs-start/end relationship. The description only says 'no período' and adds no format or precedence detail 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+resource: affiliate-network sales broken down by advertiser/program, with named networks (AWIN, CityAds, Rakuten) and example values. This clearly separates it from sibling breakdowns (channel, category, subid, status) which slice the same data along different axes.

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 implies when the tool applies (you want per-advertiser/program figures within affiliate networks), but it never says when to prefer a sibling breakdown like painel_get_channel_breakdown or painel_get_subid_breakdown, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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