list_affiliate_campaigns

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

Without annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the HTTP GET method and the return structure, implying a read-only operation. While it lacks explicit statements about side effects or safety, the listing nature is evident, and the information provided is adequate.

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 sections for purpose, API endpoint, and return structure. It is concise yet comprehensive, using bullet-point-like formatting for readability.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the return structure (dict with total_found, returned, items) and each item's fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (max_results) with full schema description coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists affiliate campaigns with specific use cases, such as obtaining campaign IDs for further detail queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning get_affiliate_campaign_detail and get_affiliate_campaign_usage as follow-up steps, which differentiates its listing purpose.

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 good context on when to use the tool (browsing campaigns) and what to do next (call detail/usage tools). It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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