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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that results are "live" (active programs) and paginated; it says nothing about result ordering, rate limits, or what happens with the network filter beyond the schema's own note.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and filters, the second routes the agent relative to the sibling tool. No filler.

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, no-required-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters and the sibling relationship adequately. It omits any hint of the returned item shape or pagination termination, which would help but is not strictly required.

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 57%, and the description names only three of the seven filters (merchant, category, country), leaving page, page_size, network and ready_only to the schema. It adds no syntax or format guidance (e.g. merchant name vs domain) beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: browse and paginate live programs, filterable by merchant, category or country. It also explicitly positions itself against the sibling find_affiliate_programs, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

"Use it to go beyond find_affiliate_programs' top matches" gives a clear selection condition versus the closest alternative. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for a single known program) or any auth prerequisites for the network filter.

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