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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only the API endpoint (GET /commissions); it says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape, which matters for a paginated list endpoint with page/pageSize parameters.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the scope and filter dimensions are front-loaded and the endpoint note is a single compact clause.

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 list tool with zero required params, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only gap is absence of any note on pagination/results behavior, which the lack of an output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 7 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the interval enum. The description restates the filter dimensions without adding syntax, defaults, or combined-filter semantics, 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 partner commissions') plus the filterable dimensions, which is enough to distinguish it from near siblings like dub_list_payouts or dub_get_partner_analytics. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 filter list ('by partner, status, customer or time window') implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative ('use dub_list_payouts for X'). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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