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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds valuable context beyond them: the recommendations are derived from LinkJolt's published benchmarks of real SaaS programs, no auth/account is required, and it also computes per-sale affiliate earnings. It does not detail output shape, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the output set, the data source, the no-account note, and the use case. Dense but every clause carries information; only the earnings-per-sale clause slightly duplicates the output enumeration.

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 read-only advisory tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what kind of recommendations come back and where they are sourced from, which is enough to call it correctly. A brief note on whether results are deterministic or vary by currency/billing would round it out.

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 four parameters are already documented with examples and a default ('default monthly', 'default USD'). The description hints at the role of commissionPercent via 'what an affiliate would earn per sale at typical rates' but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 + resource ('Plan an affiliate program for a product before launching it') and enumerates the concrete outputs: commission rate, renewal payout policy, affiliate approval approach, and per-sale earnings. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_campaign or get_program_overview, which are operational rather than advisory.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering question ('when someone asks what commission to offer or how to structure a program') and adds a precondition not visible in the schema ('Needs no LinkJolt account'). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling overlaps this planning function.

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