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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious entitlement gate (Pro plan), which is genuine behavioral context. It omits pagination behavior and return shape, which are not in 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 short sentences, purpose first, prerequisite second — zero filler and nothing an agent must sift through.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never says what a payout record contains or how pagination/results are returned. The plan gate is covered, but for a 7-parameter listing tool with no output schema the return-value gap leaves it only minimally adequate.

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 all seven filters, defaults, and the 100-result cap documented inline. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the affiliate payout queue) plus a stated purpose (reconciliation), which distinguishes it from adjacent list_* siblings like list_conversions and list_awards. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer for payout-adjacent data.

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?

'For reconciliation' gives a clear usage context, and 'Requires Pro plan or higher' is a real prerequisite an agent must check before calling. No explicit exclusions or alternative-tool routing are provided.

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