get_affiliate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: returns {active:false} when the affiliate program is not enabled. It also describes the return structure comprehensively. Could mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only tool without parameters, this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: starts with main purpose, lists output fields, handles the edge case, and ends with a use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the essential operation.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values by listing the main fields (referral link, stats, commissions, etc.) and the failure case. It is mostly complete for an AI agent to understand what to expect, though exact JSON key names or types are inferred rather than specified.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description implicitly confirms no parameters by focusing entirely on output. It adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is appropriate given zero parameters. Baseline is 4 for no-parameter tools.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the authenticated account's affiliate status and stats.' It specifies the exact data returned (referral link, visitors/signups/conversion rate, commissions summary, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_affiliate_link by focusing on retrieval of stats rather than creation.

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?

Provides a direct use case: 'Use for "how are my referrals doing?"' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or conditions when not to use it, though the sibling list contains no other affiliate stats tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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