affiliate_awin_list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses that the tool respects the configured token's access scope, defaults to publisher accounts, and returns account IDs, names, roles, and raw metadata. It also implies a read-only operation without needing annotations. This is clear and honest, though it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, which are not critical for an account-listing 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 concise sentences, each adding distinct value: what it lists, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy with the schema. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: purpose, usage context, default behavior, and return content are all covered. The input schema provides the enum values, and the description fills in the operational context. This is on par with the best examples for a filtered-list tool.

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?

The only parameter, accountType, has enum values in the schema but no description. The description adds the key semantic that it defaults to publisher accounts, which clarifies the default behavior. However, it does not explicitly explain the effect of each enum value (publisher, advertiser, all), leaving the agent to infer from the enum names. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more fully but only partially does.

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's function: 'List Awin accounts the configured token can access.' It specifies the resource (Awin accounts) and includes a scope constraint (configured token access), with a default behavior (publisher accounts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like affiliate_awin_list_programmes and affiliate_awin_verify_auth, which serve different purposes.

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 says 'Use this at setup time or when a user has access to multiple publisher IDs,' providing clear usage context. It does not enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the recommended usage is concrete enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately among many sibling tools.

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