affiliate_awin-advertiser_report_publisher_decision_result

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating the tool does nothing else: no network call, no browser action, no state change, and that it records a verified or verify_failed audit line. It also adds a key behavioral rule: never records applied/succeeded, success is only an observed outcome. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage timing with verified semantics, the third discloses behavior constraints, and the fourth lists required params and the 'never records applied' rule. Every sentence earns its place and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, usage timing, behavior, and parameter semantics. The only notable gap is the absence of any mention of the tool's return value or how success/failure of recording is communicated, especially since there is no output schema. Still, the lack of a return-value description is minor for a recorder/audit tool that apparently just writes a line.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all required parameters (brand, programmeId, publisherId, decision, verified) and adds semantics for the non-obvious ones: decision is an enumerate of approve|decline, and verified=true/false maps to expected state presence. However, it does not explain the meaning of brand/programmeId/publisherId or the optional note, though those are reasonably self-explanatory from their names.

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 records the observed outcome of a previously emitted Awin publisher approve/decline handoff, using a specific verb ('Record') and identifying the resource (observed outcome, audit arc). It distinguishes itself from siblings like propose_publisher_decision by explicitly positioning this as the post-handoff verification step, and from other report tools by scoping to publisher decisions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after a consumer carries out the handoff and revisits the verify target, with verified=true/false depending on expected state. It explicitly ties to a previously emitted handoff, implying the alternative (propose) tool. However, it does not name the specific sibling tool or list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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