affiliate_tapfiliate_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. It discloses the return type ('MediaPartner records with normalised status') but omits details about pagination behavior, auth requirements, or potential errors. The addition of 'normalised status' adds some value but is not deeply transparent.

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: the first states purpose, the second gives usage examples and a pairing recommendation. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers intent, usage, and return type, but lacks parameter semantics and pagination details. It is reasonably complete for a straightforward list tool but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent on parameter usage.

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 programme but does not explain limit, cursor, offset, search, or status parameters. The mention of 'normalised status' gives minimal hint about the status param, but overall the description adds little beyond the raw 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 the tool's function: 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Tapfiliate.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the network is named in both the tool name and description, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other networks.

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 example user queries ('who is promoting us on Tapfiliate?', 'which publishers are active on our programme?') and suggests pairing with get_programme_performance for deeper analysis, effectively guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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