affiliate_manager_list_commissions

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not disclose pagination, return format, or any operational details. It fails to add any value beyond the structured metadata.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A concise description would still provide essential context in a few sentences. Here, it is a bare label that does not earn its place as a useful tool description.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is drastically insufficient. It does not explain what the tool does beyond the name, does not clarify the returned data, and offers no context on defaults or behavior. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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?

The description provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters. While some parameters have descriptions in the schema (limit, query, status, campaignId, locationId, affiliateId), others like skip, toDate, and fromDate are undocumented in both the schema and the description. With schema coverage at 67% (not high), the description should compensate but does not.

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 'List Commissions' states a verb and resource but is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It provides no scope, filtering, or differentiation from sibling list tools like affiliate_manager_list_affiliates or affiliate_manager_list_payouts. It is vague and does not specify what kind of commissions or any context.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description offers zero context for selection among the many list tools in the sibling set.

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