affiliate_get_client_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape, that targets are already parsed, that parseErrors must be reported and excluded from verdicts, and that the context is advisory only and never authorises a write. This is rich behavioral context beyond what a schema would provide.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with purpose and usage. The return structure is dense but every clause adds necessary operational detail (e.g., parseErrors handling, advisory-only nature). No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents the return values and their semantics, including nested objects. It also gives usage context and caveats. For a read-only tool with one parameter, this is complete enough to invoke and handle the result correctly.

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% for the 'brand' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining it as 'the brand slug from brands.json'. This gives the agent the exact source and format for the parameter. It could go further with examples, but for a single parameter this is sufficient.

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 'Read[s] the advisory strategy and KPI context an operator has recorded for one brand'. The verb 'Read' plus the specific resource (strategy/KPI context per brand) distinguishes it from sibling tools like affiliate_set_client_strategy (write) and affiliate_list_client_strategies (list).

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 says when to use it: 'Use this before producing a report so a delta can be judged against the client's own plan'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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