openaffiliate-mcp

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

The description adds context about the specific data fields returned (agent instructions, commission terms, restrictions, signup info), going beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It provides transparency about what information the tool surfaces, though it does not mention response format or edge cases.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, with no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's scope and return content. It is complete given the tool's simplicity, though it could explicitly tie the slug to the program identity.

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 already fully documents the 'slug' parameter with an example and type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'full details of an affiliate program', explicitly listing the included content (agent instructions, commission terms, restrictions, signup info). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools list_categories and search_programs, which serve different purposes.

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 this tool is for retrieving complete information about a single program, contrasting with siblings that list categories or search programs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, such as when a specific slug is already known.

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?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the output includes program counts, which is a small behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose anything else about return format or limitations. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the main purpose and key return value. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description effectively communicates what the tool returns (categories with counts). It could mention ordering or pagination, but those are likely irrelevant for a category list, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100% by default). The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, as there is no parameter semantics to elaborate on.

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 ('List') and the specific resource ('affiliate program categories'), plus an additional detail about the returned data ('with the number of programs in each'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_program and search_programs, which focus on individual programs or searching.

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 that this tool is for retrieving all categories, which is a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools, but the straightforward wording and sibling names make the intended usage obvious.

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?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates the read-only safety. The description adds no further behavioral context such as result format, pagination, or filtering nuances beyond what the schema provides. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by the search dimensions. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple purpose, the annotations cover safety, and the schema documents all parameters, the description adequately summarizes the tool's function. It could be slightly more explicit about the return type (e.g., 'returns matching programs'), but overall the context is sufficient.

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?

All four parameters have full descriptions in the schema, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It does mention keyword, category, and commission type, which aligns with the schema, but doesn't provide extra meaning beyond the schema's own 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'affiliate programs', and specifies the search dimensions (keyword, category, commission type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_program (single retrieval) and list_categories (category listing).

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 for finding programs by various filters but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on when to use get_program or list_categories instead.

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