openaffiliate-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope of details returned (agent instructions, commission terms, etc.), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or performance characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific detail types. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it appropriately sized for this simple retrieval tool.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what details are returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning sibling tool relationships or error handling.

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 the single parameter 'slug' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('affiliate program'), and lists the types of details included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'search_programs' or 'list_categories', which prevents a perfect score.

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 usage context by specifying what details are retrieved, suggesting this is for detailed program information. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_programs' or 'list_categories', nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output includes counts of programs per category, which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling, so it only partially compensates for the lack of detailed 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all affiliate program categories') and adds specific output details ('with the number of programs in each'). There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the output format, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like error cases or data freshness. With annotations covering safety, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete for optimal agent use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate program categories'), and specifies the output includes 'the number of programs in each'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_program' or 'search_programs', which might handle individual programs or filtered searches, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_program' or 'search_programs'. It implies usage for listing all categories with counts, but offers no explicit context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about searchable fields (name, description, tags, category, commission type), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or result ordering, resulting in a baseline score with some added value.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element (verb, resource, searchable attributes) earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with 4 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and behavioral context like result limits or error handling, making it minimally viable but with clear 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions searchable attributes (keyword, category, commission type) but doesn't add syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('search') and resource ('affiliate programs'), specifying searchable attributes (keyword, category, commission type). It distinguishes from 'get_program' (likely for single program retrieval) and 'list_categories' (for listing categories), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling search tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_program' or 'list_categories'. It mentions searchable attributes but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information, leaving usage context implied at best.

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