affiliate_manager_get_affiliate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, but it does not contradict the annotations either. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since annotations carry the burden.

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?

The description is extremely terse—just two words—but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any front-loaded useful information, such as what the tool returns or how it is scoped. While there is no wasted prose, there is also no substantive content, making it too minimal to be helpful.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the annotations and schema provide the required parameter and safety information, but the description fails to explain the operation's purpose or output. It does not state that it retrieves a single affiliate record, nor does it describe any return format. An agent must rely entirely on the name and schema, leaving gaps in understanding tool behavior and appropriate use cases.

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%: both affiliateId and locationId have clear descriptions in the schema. The description 'Get Affiliate' contributes nothing about parameter usage or relationships. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not elevate it.

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 'Get Affiliate' states a verb and a resource, but it essentially repeats the tool name without adding any detail about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieving a single affiliate by ID). It does not distinguish itself from sibling affiliate_manager_list_affiliates, though the name implies a singular fetch. This is minimally clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like affiliate_manager_list_affiliates, no mention of prerequisites, and no context about selecting this over similar get/list tools. The description provides zero direction for an agent deciding which tool to call.

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