affiliate_impact-advertiser_list_contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds experimental status, single-programme scope, and 'raw payloads preserved,' which goes beyond the annotation. It lacks auth/rate-limit details but is consistent with the read-only hint.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. Front-loads the action and purpose, then packs parameters and return characteristics into a single well-structured sentence.

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?

No output schema, so the description's mention of 'read-only Impact contract records with raw payloads preserved' gives some return context. It covers purpose, params, read-only nature, and use case. Missing pagination details (e.g., opaque cursor, page size) and response envelope structure, but is reasonably complete for a list tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly enumerates all six parameters: brand and programmeId as required, and status, mediaPartnerId, cursor, and limit as filters. It adds the pagination interpretation of 'page cursor' and clarifies filter roles, though it does not detail status enum semantics or value formats.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('list') and defines the resource ('Impact contracts' as payment-term relationships with media partners), scoped to one brand programme. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_contract (single fetch) and propose_contract (change).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'to review known partner terms before any separately gated change is proposed.' This gives a clear context and implies read-only review, but it does not name alternative tools for single-fetch or other scenarios.

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