keap_get_affiliate_commissions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get all commissions', but the schema reveals pagination and date filtering. The description does not explain these behaviors (e.g., whether 'all' means paginated, default limit, or order).

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 one sentence, which is concise but under-specifies the tool. It could be improved by front-loading key details without being verbose. Current length trades off informativeness.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain filtering capabilities, pagination, or expected return format. The schema partially fills the gap, but context for a complete usage scenario is lacking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Get all commissions', which is a verbatim title. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('commissions for an affiliate'), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'keap_list_commissions' or 'keap_get_affiliate_payments', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'keap_get_affiliate_summary', 'keap_list_commissions'). The description lacks context on prerequisites or preferred use cases.

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