affiliate_refersion_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns 'MediaPartner records with normalised status,' which is useful context. However, it does not mention whether this is a safe read operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a simple list tool, the return-type disclosure is meaningful, but the lack of safety/pagination detail keeps it at a mid score.

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 three sentences with no filler: it fronts the action, gives usage examples, and then states return type and a pairing recommendation. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description correctly mentions the return type ('MediaPartner records with normalised status') and adds a complementary tool reference. However, it does not explain the six parameters in the schema, nor pagination/cursor behavior, leaving gaps for a 6-parameter list tool. The description is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 explain parameters to compensate. It does not. The parameters brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, and status are only given by name; the description doesn't specify that brand is required, what format it should take, or how search/status filters behave. The names are somewhat self-evident, but without explicit semantics the agent may fail to construct valid calls.

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 action and resource: 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Refersion.' It provides concrete user-phrase examples ('who is promoting us on Refersion?') and clearly distinguishes this from general list tools by naming Refersion and media partners. This fully clarifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings.

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 states when to use this tool with example queries ('Use this when the user asks...') and names a complementary tool ('pair with the matching get_programme_performance tool'). It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., other networks), but the Refersion-specific context and pairing direction provide strong usage guidance. A small exclusion note would make it a 5.

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