affiliate_growsurf_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return type ('MediaPartner records with normalised status') but does not mention side-effect safety, auth requirements, pagination behavior, or what 'normalised status' entails. For a read-only list operation this is less critical than a mutation, but key operational details remain unspecified.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then gives usage examples, and finally states the return value and related tool. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description only covers high-level purpose and a few usage examples. It omits pagination semantics, allowed status values, search behavior, and any error/preconditions. The pairing hint is useful but the overall context is insufficient for robust autonomous 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 clarifies that 'brand' is the brand's programme and mentions 'normalised status', but provides no explanation for limit, cursor, offset, search, or status parameters. An agent would not know valid status values or how search/pagination behave, making correct invocation difficult.

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 GrowSurf.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_programmes and get_programme by focusing on media partners/publishers, and includes concrete example user queries that map to the tool's purpose.

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 triggers are provided: 'Use this when the user asks "who is promoting us on GrowSurf?", "which publishers are active on our programme?", or wants an outbound roster.' It also names a complementary tool ('pair with the matching get_programme_performance tool') for further drilling, effectively indicating an alternative for deeper analysis.

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