affiliate_cj-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns MediaPartner records with normalized status, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any edge cases. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The purpose, use cases, return type, and a pairing suggestion are packed efficiently. Each sentence earns its place.

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 covers the core purpose, examples, return type, and a companion tool, which is adequate for a simple list operation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, missing details like pagination mechanics, status normalization values, and parameter semantics leave notable gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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, but it does not explain any of the six parameters. While parameter names (brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, status) are somewhat self-explanatory, 'brand' and 'status' values remain ambiguous, and the description only indirectly references 'brand' through 'brand's programme.' This is minimal compensation for a schema with no descriptions.

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 a specific action ('List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme') and explicitly names the resource and context (CJ Affiliate advertiser). It also differentiates from sibling tools by referencing the network and advertiser perspective, and includes concrete example user queries.

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?

Provides explicit usage triggers: when the user asks who promotes the brand, which publishers are active, or wants an outbound roster. It also names a complementary tool (get_programme_performance) for deeper per-publisher performance, which is a clear alternative/companion workflow.

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