affiliate_get_brand_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source dependency (local store from affiliate_build_brand_snapshot), the side effect of writing a local CSV when format='file', the entitlement gate, and the entitlement_required fallback result. This goes well beyond a generic 'return data' statement.

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 sentences, each additive: returns/formats, usage/prerequisite, entitlement. No filler or repetition of schema details; the most important action is front-loaded.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return shape. It explains formats and the manifest-for-file tradeoff, but doesn't describe the fields in 'structured rows' or the manifest contents. It also omits error behavior when the snapshot doesn't exist, though the prerequisite is stated. Overall, highly usable but slightly incomplete on result shape.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains the three format enum values, including the file-write behavior, and ties the brand parameter to the brand concept throughout. It does not fully define what constitutes a 'brand' or how to specify it, but the core parameter semantics are covered.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource ('persisted 30-day, transaction-grain rows for a brand'), and enumerates three output formats. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it reads the local store written by affiliate_build_brand_snapshot, separating it from network-fetching list_transactions 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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('transaction-level drill-down', 'hand a spreadsheet-ready export to the operator') and provides a format preference ('prefer format "file" on large accounts'). It also names the prerequisite (build a snapshot first) and explains the entitlement gate, giving clear selection and invocation guidance.

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