affiliate_rewardful_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 adds value by stating 'Returns MediaPartner records with normalised status', which explains the return type and a transformation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, authentication requirements, or the exact meaning of 'normalised status', leaving gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, follows with explicit use cases, and ends with return type and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or extraneous detail.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is not fully complete. It briefly notes return records and suggests a complementary tool, but omits essential context about pagination, default values, filtering semantics, and the structure of returned records. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not meaningfully explain any of them beyond implying 'brand' through 'brand's programme'. It mentions 'normalised status' but that appears to describe output rather than the 'status' input parameter. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to use limit, cursor, offset, search, or status.

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 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Rewardful', using a specific verb ('List'), resource ('media partners'), and context ('at Rewardful'). It also distinguishes from other tools by explicitly naming Rewardful and focusing on media partners rather than programmes, transactions, or performance.

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 the tool: 'Use this when the user asks "who is promoting us on Rewardful?", "which publishers are active on our programme?", or wants an outbound roster.' It also provides a complementary alternative: 'pair with the matching get_programme_performance tool on Rewardful to drill into per-publisher performance.' This gives clear usage context and suggests related tools.

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