affiliate_impact-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does state that the tool returns MediaPartner records with 'normalised status', adding a useful detail. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or pagination/rate-limit behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and use cases, and includes practical query examples. No redundant wording, though the last sentence about pairing with get_programme_performance is useful guidance rather than filler.

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 gives enough context for tool selection and mentions the return type and a complementary tool, but it lacks parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and the meaning of 'normalised status'. Without annotations or an output schema, these gaps remain.

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%. The description does not explain any of the six parameters (brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, status), leaving the required 'brand' and optional filters undocumented. The only implicit hint is 'brand's programme', which is insufficient.

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 verb ('List') and specific resource ('media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Impact (advertiser)'). It also distinguishes from the many sibling list_programmes tools by specifying the Impact advertiser context and the 'media partners' focus.

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 provides explicit trigger examples ('who is promoting us on Impact?', 'which publishers are active?') and recommends pairing with get_programme_performance for deeper analysis. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative list tools.

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