affiliate_commission-factory-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 burden. It reveals that results are MediaPartner records with normalised status, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of 'normalised status' values. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then provides concrete usage triggers, and ends with return details and a related tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 purpose, usage examples, return type, and a related tool, making it useful for basic invocation. However, it lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details like pagination or status filtering, which are important given there is no output schema or annotations to fill the gaps.

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%, and the description does little to explain the parameters. 'brand' is only implicitly referenced as 'brand's programme', and 'status' is hinted by 'normalised status', but limit, offset, cursor, and search are not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 lists media partners (publishers) for a brand's programme at Commission Factory (advertiser), with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('media partners'), and scope ('brand's programme'). It also mentions the return type and a distinctive trait ('normalised status'), making it easily distinguishable from sibling network-specific list_media_partners tools.

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 usage guidance is provided with example user queries ('who is promoting us...', 'which publishers are active...') and the outbound roster use case. It also recommends pairing with get_programme_performance for deeper analysis, giving clear context on when to use this tool and what to use alongside it.

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