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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world creation call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful default for click_id_param, but says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, error conditions, or what is returned on success — meaningful gaps for a non-idempotent create.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key default. Nothing is padded, though the click_id_param clause largely duplicates the schema description.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain the return value (e.g., the new network's id) or how the optional fields affect the created entity. It is adequate to invoke the tool with just a name but not to use it well.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate, but it only restates that name is required and repeats the click_id_param default already present in the schema. Five parameters (tags, notes, group_id, extra_url_params, postback_ips_whitelist) receive no explanation in either place.

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 ('Create an affiliate network'), which cleanly separates it from get_aff_network, list_aff_networks, and update_aff_network. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_aff_network or when a network already exists, and no prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned. The only usage-adjacent statement is that name is the sole required field, which is already implied by the schema.

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