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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive read operation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them by stating the plan requirement and hinting at returned fields (earnings and click counts). It does not cover pagination behavior or full response structure, but the added entitlement and return-content details are useful.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted text, and the core operation is front-loaded before the plan requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 rich schema and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource, plan requirement, and some return content. It could be more complete by clarifying pagination or when to choose this listing tool over related reporting tools.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only vaguely implies campaign filtering with "across your campaigns" and adds no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: "List affiliates," with scope across campaigns and returned data such as earnings and click counts. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools by resource, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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 gives a useful prerequisite ("Requires Pro plan or higher") but does not explain when to use this tool rather than related tools such as get_stats, list_payouts, or update_affiliate_status. Usage is implied by the tool name and description rather than explicitly guided.

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