affiliate_list_networks

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return structure (NetworkMeta[] with operationClaimStatuses, configured, missingCredentials, setupAction) and the behavioral intent (avoid confusing auth errors, indicates static registry vs live diagnostic). This goes well beyond a minimal description.

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 about 100 words and densely packed. The first sentence is front-loaded and concise. The second sentence is long but adds necessary return-field detail that would otherwise be missing without an output schema. No filler words, though it could be split for readability.

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?

Given zero params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully compensates by explaining return fields, when to use, and how it relates to sibling tools. It even covers the 'additively extended' nature of the response, making it complete for agent selection and 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't discuss parameters, but none exist, so it doesn't need to. It does mention env-var names in the return context, which adds value without relating to input parameters.

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 lists affiliate networks with adapter version, claim_status, and credential configuration status. This is distinct from sibling tools that list programmes, transactions, or verify auth, and it explicitly positions itself as a registry/discovery tool rather than a diagnostic tool.

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 explicitly says to use this 'to discover which networks are wired up' and to tell the user which need setup 'before invoking a per-network tool' to avoid auth errors. It also recommends pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for live data, providing a clear alternative and when to prefer this tool.

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