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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: results are auto-scoped to the caller's tracking_id, each record includes share_eligible/share_amount, the page ends with share_summary, and an API key is required. It stops short of describing pagination/rate-limit behavior or what share_summary contains, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 scope and auth requirement are front-loaded, which is good, but the sentence is bloated by a redundant restatement: 'each order carries share_eligible + share_amount and the page ends with share_summary — each order carries share_eligible and share_amount fields.' That duplication wastes space and undercuts the otherwise tight structure.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain the response shape, and it does so only partly (share fields, share_summary) while leaving pagination semantics and the meaning of 'status' unaddressed. For a 5-parameter financial-reporting tool, that leaves notable gaps.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate, and it only partially does — it clarifies the time-range pair ('in a time range') and implies page-level structure, but says nothing about the 'status' filter values or page_size limits beyond what the schema shows. Two of five parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('YOUR attributed affiliate orders in a time range') and states the scoping mechanism ('filtered to your key's tracking_id'), which is enough for an agent to tell this apart from the product/catalog siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling, but no sibling plausibly overlaps this scope.

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?

It offers use context ('source for your commission settlement & refund tracking') but no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative. The agent can infer this is the settlement-reporting read path, but nothing tells it what to do instead when it wants non-attributed order data.

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