affiliate_adtraction-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type ('MediaPartner records') and that status is 'normalised', plus a hint to pair with performance tool. However, it says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or auth requirements. The added context is moderate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and including useful example queries and a pairing tip. Slightly verbose with multiple quote examples, but overall efficient.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations; the description provides the return type and usage scenarios but omits parameter semantics and pagination. For a list tool with this complexity, the description leaves too much unsaid.

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 does not explain any of the six parameters. It only implies 'brand' via 'the brand's programme', leaving limit, cursor, offset, search, and status entirely undocumented. This is a serious gap.

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 Adtraction (advertiser).' It also provides example user queries, clearly distinguishing this Adtraction (advertiser) tool from sibling list_media_partners tools for other networks.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the user asks...' and then indicates a complementary tool: 'pair with the matching get_programme_performance tool...' This gives clear invocation context and an alternative.

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