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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: results are 'live' programs, they are ranked by fit, and no signup/auth is required. It stops short of disclosing return shape or result limits, but that is a modest gap given the annotation coverage.

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 tightly written sentences with the scope and ranking behavior front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 11-parameter, no-output-schema discovery tool, the description supplies the essential framing (live programs, fit ranking, no signup) and the schema carries the parameter detail. It could note what a result contains or how it relates to the tracked-link siblings, but it is largely sufficient.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly all 11 parameters. The description only echoes the channel dimension ('site, app, newsletter or social channel') and adds no syntax, defaults, or interactions beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find') and resource ('live Clickwise merchant programs') scoped to a publisher's channel, plus the ranking basis ('ranked by fit'). It distinguishes itself from enumeration siblings like list_programs only implicitly through the discovery/ranking framing, with no explicit sibling callout.

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?

'Does not require signup' and the channel framing imply the discovery context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as list_programs or get_monetization_feed. Usage must be inferred.

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