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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that, including default sort order (newest first), the returned field set, and the possible state values. It omits pagination behavior, but for a read-only list this is a solid addition over the annotation.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, then filtering/expansion options, ending with the backing endpoint. No filler sentences and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (amount, currency, state) and ordering. It covers filtering and expansion adequately for a read-only list tool, though pagination semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 page, limit, state, expand and affiliate_id are all already documented. The description restates the filtering and expansion parameters and enumerates states, which are also in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured fields. 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 payouts) and even defines the resource parenthetically as 'bundles of an affiliate's payable commissions', so the agent understands the domain object. It adds ordering (newest first) and returned fields (amount, currency, state), which clearly distinguishes it from the singular rewardful_get_payout.

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 says what can be filtered and expanded ('Filter by affiliate or state; expand affiliate or commissions'), implying usage, but never states when to reach for this list tool versus rewardful_get_payout or rewardful_list_commissions. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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