affiliate_partnerstack-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning MediaPartner records with normalised status, which adds some value, and 'List' implies a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other side effects, 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence contributes value: the first defines purpose, the second covers usage cues and a complementary tool reference. There is no wasted wording or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and use cases but fails to explain pagination (cursor, limit, offset), status/search filtering, and return-value details beyond 'normalised status'. An agent would lack critical operational context.

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 does not explain any of the 6 parameters. It only refers to 'the brand's programme' without elaborating on the required 'brand' parameter, and completely omits guidance on limit, cursor, offset, search, or status. This is a severe deficiency for such a parameterized tool.

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) running on the brand's programme at PartnerStack (advertiser). It uses a specific verb+resource+platform combination and distinguishes itself from sibling list_media_partners tools by naming PartnerStack, 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance with example user queries ('who is promoting us on PartnerStack?', 'which publishers are active?') and directly recommends pairing with the matching get_programme_performance tool for per-publisher performance, effectively differentiating when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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