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

Annotations indicate a write operation (not read-only, not destructive). The description adds value by noting the plan cap consumption and host authorization requirement, which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the core purpose, constraints, and key parameters. Could be improved with structured formatting but is already concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (9 params, nested object, no output schema), the description provides high-level purpose and constraints but lacks details on return values, the structure of the 'tiers' parameter, and complete parameter listing. Some gaps remain for agent understanding.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for 9 parameters, including a complex nested object. The description only lists a few parameters (tiers, code_prefix, max_affiliates, commission, start/expiry) but omits 'profile_name' and does not explain the structure of the 'tiers' object, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool creates a reusable 'open' affiliate profile, distinguishing it from 'add_affiliate' for specific individuals. The verb 'Create' and resource 'affiliate profile' are explicit.

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 mentions requirements (event_id, tiers, host role) and plan cap constraints. It implicitly distinguishes from 'add_affiliate' for self-join vs specific assignment, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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