affiliate_admitad-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'MediaPartner records with normalised status' and implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage triggers, and complementary pairing. No filler or redundancy; well front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain any parameter semantics, return fields beyond 'normalised status', or error/pagination behavior. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, and the description fails to compensate. It only implicitly ties 'brand' to 'the brand's programme' and gives no meaning for limit, cursor, offset, search, or status. This is a significant omission for a 6-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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Admitad (advertiser).' It includes concrete example queries and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the Admitad advertiser 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user asks...' with three typical phrasings. It also references the complementary tool 'get_programme_performance' and suggests pairing, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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