affiliate_everflow-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like returning 'MediaPartner records with normalised status' and describes an 'outbound roster', but it omits details such as pagination behavior, default limits, or authentication requirements. This is some value but not comprehensive.

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 focused sentences: purpose, usage triggers, and return/pairing. The description is front-loaded with the key action, contains no fluff, and every 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 purpose and usage well and hints at output format, but given the absence of output schema, annotations, and schema parameter descriptions, it leaves parameter semantics and pagination behavior under-specified. It is adequate for tool selection but not fully complete for invocation.

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 only implicitly references 'brand' (via 'brand's programme') and hints at 'status' through 'normalised status', but limit, cursor, offset, and search are entirely unexplained. This leaves a significant gap for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Everflow (Advertiser).' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_programmes or get_programme_performance. It also provides example user queries, reinforcing the tool's exact scope.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks...' and gives concrete query phrasings. It also recommends pairing with get_programme_performance for per-publisher performance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for other needs.

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