affiliate_partnero_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses that the tool returns MediaPartner records with normalised status, which is a useful transformation detail. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, auth, or side effects, though 'List' implies a read-only operation.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words; front-loaded purpose, then usage examples, then complementary pairing. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage scenarios, return type, and the related performance tool. It leaves some gaps around parameter semantics and the meaning of 'normalised status', but is fairly complete for selection and initial 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the optional parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status). The only hint is 'brand's programme' relating to the required brand param, leaving the agent to infer meanings from parameter 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 clearly states it lists media partners (publishers) on the brand's Partnero programme, using the specific verb 'List' and resource type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_programmes and get_programme_performance by clarifying it returns MediaPartner records.

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 provides explicit user-question triggers ('who is promoting us on Partnero?') and suggests pairing with the matching get_programme_performance tool, giving clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative for deeper performance analysis.

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