affiliate_build_brand_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it 'persist[s] it locally' (a side-effect), it is 'count-honest' about partial pulls and never totals incomplete data, and it specifies data provenance (clicks from advertiser performance, commission split from transactions). It also notes a prerequisite. This is substantial transparency, though it stops short of describing error handling or return format details.

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 sentences, each carrying substantive information: purpose and side-effect, data source and honesty behavior, and usage context. It is dense but not bloated, and it front-loads the primary action. No wasted words, though a slight simplification could improve scannability.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the aggregation window, data sources, local persistence, honesty about partial pulls, its role in the product, and a prerequisite. The main gap is the lack of explanation for 'networks' and 'timezone' parameters, and no mention of the return shape, but overall it gives a strong contextual picture.

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 indirectly explains 'brand' ('Pull one brand's affiliate performance'), but the 'networks' parameter is not explained beyond implying bound networks, and 'timezone' is never mentioned. The description thus adds minimal meaning beyond the bare parameter names, leaving two of three parameters semantically underdefined.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Pull one brand's affiliate performance... normalise it... persist it locally, and return the snapshot.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by noting that 'CSV export and the AI-action bundle are separate tools,' and mentions the time windows and data sources, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool: it 'powers the free tables' and explicitly calls out that CSV export and AI-action bundle are separate tools. It also includes a prerequisite ('Requires the brand to be bound to advertiser-side networks...'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the many per-network query tools or give a 'when not to use' beyond the separation from CSV/AI tools.

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