affiliate_awin-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'MediaPartner records with normalised status', providing some return-type context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'normalised status' entails, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a list 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 two sentences: a purpose statement with example queries, then a return-type note and a cross-reference to a complementary tool. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no fluff or redundant details.

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 description covers the core use case and return type, and even suggests a related tool for further depth. However, with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the overall context is incomplete—especially around pagination, filtering, and parameter formats. It is adequate but not thorough for a tool with this complexity.

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%, yet the description only implicitly references the required 'brand' parameter and says nothing about limit, cursor, offset, search, or status. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use optional parameters like 'search' or 'status'.

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 Awin (advertiser)'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools by naming the network and perspective. It also provides concrete example queries ('who is promoting us on Awin', 'which publishers are active on our programme?') that reinforce the exact 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when the user asks... or wants an outbound roster') and suggests pairing with the matching get_programme_performance tool for deeper analysis. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling network-specific list_media_partners tools, but the network qualifier in the description and tool name makes the context clear enough.

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