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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by calling out filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear picture of how the operation behaves.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, supported behavior is stated compactly, and the endpoint reference is useful without being verbose.

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, zero-required-parameter list operation with fully documented schema properties, the description is essentially complete. It could optionally describe the return payload shape since there is no output schema, but the verb 'List' plus endpoint makes the expected result unambiguous enough.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description's mention of filtering, ordering, and cursor pagination loosely maps to filter, order_by, and page_token, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('referral-program affiliates'), and adds the Keap endpoint 'GET /affiliates' for unambiguous identification. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list tools because it targets affiliates specifically.

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 description states the use case directly: listing referral-program affiliates, with filtering, ordering, and pagination supported. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but among the provided siblings there is no competing affiliate-list tool, so the intended context is clear.

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