x_api_get_users_affiliates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently covers risk (read-only), required permissions, environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failures, and safety warnings, far exceeding basic disclosure.

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 well-structured with labeled sections for usage, risk, permissions, parameters, response, failures, and example. Each section is concise and adds value; the format is scannable and front-loaded with a one-line summary.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, permissions, environment scoping, response shape, failures, and safety. It omits details on authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, and the concept of 'affiliates' is not expanded, but the example helps. Still, most key aspects are addressed.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly documents id, max_results, and pagination_token formats, and explains scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey via behavior text. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not described, leaving gaps for a 9-parameter tool.

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 states 'Get affiliates.' which clearly indicates the action and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings since no other tool targets affiliates, though it lacks a brief elaboration of what affiliates are in this 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?

The description provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' instructions, naming alternatives like x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion for exploration. This gives clear decision guidance for the agent.

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