affiliate_leaddyno_list_media_partners

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

The description discloses that it returns MediaPartner records with 'normalised status' and scopes to the brand's programme. It lacks explicit side-effect or authentication statements, but the verb 'list' implies a read operation, and the return-format note adds useful behavioral context.

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 a single two-sentence block with useful examples and pairing advice; while slightly dense, it is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff.

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?

It covers the tool's purpose, typical use-cases, and return type, but omits any detail about filtering/pagination parameters and the 'normalised status' values, which an agent would need to construct correct calls.

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 for 6 parameters, the description only implicitly references the required 'brand' via 'brand's programme'. Limit, cursor, offset, search, and status receive no explanation at all, leaving their semantics to be guessed from property names.

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 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at LeadDyno', providing a specific verb, resource, and platform. This distinguishes it from sibling media-partner listing tools for other networks and from LeadDyno's own get_programme_performance.

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?

It gives explicit 'when to use' triggers with example queries ('who is promoting us on LeadDyno?') and recommends pairing with get_programme_performance for performance drill-down, which is clear usage guidance.

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