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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it supports bulk execution via ids, which goes beyond annotations. Although it doesn't mention specifics like rate limits or pagination details, the annotations already cover safety, so the description adds some value without contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but the inclusion of a bracketed flattened action and generic action list adds some clutter. It is not overly verbose, but the structure could be improved by explaining parameters more directly.

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?

With no output schema and only 4 parameters at 0% coverage, the description is inadequate for agents to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how to choose between actions. For a complex tool with multiple actions, this is insufficient.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or role of each parameter (id, ids, cursor, account). It only mentions 'ids' for bulk execution and 'id' for get action implicitly. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving agents to infer from names alone.

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 states it lists affiliations in Guru with a read-only action, and specifies the actions (list, get, assets, transactions) with flattened action 'get'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like guru_affiliations_list or guru_affiliations_assets, relying on the flattened action to imply it. The purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions bulk support (accepts ids for batched execution) but does not explain when to use 'get' vs 'list' or other specific tools. It lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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