affiliate_awin_report_application_result

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

The description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation. It states 'records a verified or verify_failed audit line', which is a write operation, yet the annotation declares readOnlyHint=true. The description also asserts 'no state change', but recording an audit line is inherently a state change. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads agents about side effects.

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 dense but well-structured: first sentence gives the purpose, followed by usage condition, behavioral scope, parameter requirements, and a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and no filler or redundant content exists.

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 provides comprehensive guidance for a tool with no output schema and no nested objects: purpose, when to call, parameter semantics, and side-effect boundaries. However, the contradiction regarding 'records' vs. 'no state change' introduces ambiguity, making it not fully trustworthy in its current form.

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 required parameters (brand, advertiserId, programmeName, verified) and optional note, and thoroughly explains the verified parameter semantics (true when pending/joined, false otherwise). The identifier parameters are self-explanatory from their names, so the added value is sufficient.

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 programme-application handoff, using specific verbs ('Record', 'records') and a specific resource ('Awin programme-application handoff'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it only records an audit line and does nothing else.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: call after the consumer carries out the handoff and revisits the verify target, with verified=true when the relationship reads pending or joined, and verified=false otherwise. It also provides negative guidance ('Never records applied/succeeded') and clarifies it is not for initiating handoffs or making network calls.

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