affiliate_partnerize-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that the tool 'Returns MediaPartner records with normalised status', which adds some behavioral context about output normalization. However, it omits key behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation, which are especially relevant given the cursor/limit parameters in the schema.

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 composed of three sentences, each serving a purpose: defining the action, providing usage triggers, and noting the output and complementary tool. It is front-loaded and not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tightened by removing redundant phrasing like 'running on the brand's programme' when the scope is already clear.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain pagination, filtering, and return structure. While it covers the core purpose and output type, it omits any mention of cursor-based pagination, offset/limit behavior, or the search/status filtering capabilities, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema coverage for parameter descriptions is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter (brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, status). It does not even mention that 'brand' is required or how 'status' filters results. The description fails to compensate for the absence of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Partnerize (Advertiser)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on media partners rather than programme details or transactions. The example queries further clarify the intended scope.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks...' and provides concrete example questions, making usage context highly clear. It also suggests pairing with get_programme_performance for further drill-down. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus other list tools, such as list_programmes, though the context is strongly implied.

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