affiliate_manager_list_payouts

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint: false) already establish that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, default parameter values, or any side effects. It fails to disclose anything beyond what the schema and annotations already convey, providing no incremental value.

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 concise (two words), which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded with the core action, yet it lacks any additional structure or context that would help an agent. Concision is good, but not at the expense of utility; the description earns its place by stating the purpose, but a slightly richer structure would improve it without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not address pagination (skip/limit), date filtering (start/end), or how to interpret status/query. The locationId parameter already notes a default in the schema, but the description itself adds no guidance. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without external knowledge, making it incomplete for its complexity.

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 56%, meaning four of nine parameters (end, skip, limit, start) have no descriptions. The tool description does not help interpret any parameters; it is silent about skip/limit for pagination, date ranges, or the meaning of 'query'. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate but does not, leaving crucial parameters underspecified.

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 Payouts' clearly states a specific verb (list) and resource (payouts), which is unambiguous. It does not restate the full tool name verbatim, but the resource is precise enough to distinguish from sibling tools like affiliate_manager_list_commissions. However, it does not add any qualifying details (e.g., scope, filtering), so it is slightly below a top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as affiliate_manager_list_commissions or affiliate_manager_list_affiliates. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or contextual cues. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema, which is insufficient for correct tool selection.

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