affiliate_kwanko-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns MediaPartner records with normalised status, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits details on pagination, filtering behavior, or any operational constraints, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, each add value: the core purpose, example triggers, and return type with cross-tool pairing. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 provides solid usage context and return type but is incomplete for parameter construction. It does not explain the optional parameters or pagination, so an agent would need external knowledge to invoke it fully.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level guidance. It mentions the brand's programme but does not explain the brand parameter, nor does it describe limit, cursor, offset, search, or status. The agent is left without meaning for any parameter beyond the implied brand context.

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's function: listing media partners (publishers) on the brand's Kwanko programme. It includes specific example user queries and distinguishes itself from the related get_programme_performance tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided via example queries ('who is promoting us on Kwanko (advertiser)?', 'which publishers are active on our programme?'). It also directs pairing with get_programme_performance for per-publisher performance, effectively indicating an alternative tool for that use case.

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