affiliate_awin_get_advertiser_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns: 'Returns report rows plus the exact query and raw Awin response.' This goes beyond a simple 'fetch' by disclosing the response structure. It doesn't cover pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only performance tool, this is meaningful transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The second sentence adds usage context and return details without fluff. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the aggregation and return format but leaves parameter semantics completely unaddressed. An agent would not know how to set dateType, what region values are valid, or the format for 'from'/'to'. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 does not explain any of the five parameters (to, from, region, dateType, timezone). Even 'daily or weekly' is not clearly tied to dateType or date range. The description adds no value for parameter understanding, making this a critical 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch Awin publisher performance aggregated by advertiser.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_creative_performance and get_campaign_performance by emphasizing advertiser-level aggregation and by naming the network (Awin).

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this for daily or weekly revenue, click, impression, approval, and commission summaries by merchant.' This tells the agent when to select this tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives. Since the need for daily/weekly summaries is a clear signal, it earns a 4.

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