affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_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,' which adds a behavioral trait beyond a list name. However, with no annotations, it does not address auth requirements, default filtering/pagination behavior, or the meaning of 'normalised status.' The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.

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, all information-rich: purpose, usage examples, and pairing guidance. No redundant or filler language; it is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and a high-level return trait. However, the lack of parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage) and no output schema leave significant gaps for an agent invoking this tool correctly. The pairing hint partially compensates but does not replace schema-level parameter detail.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `brand` refers to the brand's programme, but it does not explain `limit`, `cursor`, `offset`, `search`, or `status`. The mention of 'outbound roster' suggests an unfiltered list but does not specify how these parameters modify the result.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Post Affiliate Pro.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools (e.g., list_programmes, list_transactions) by naming the resource and network. Example phrasings further reinforce the intent.

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?

Explicit usage triggers are given in the form of concrete user questions ('who is promoting us on Post Affiliate Pro?', 'which publishers are active on our programme?'). It also names the complementary tool get_programme_performance and advises pairing it for per-publisher performance, effectively differentiating when to use each.

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