affiliate_tolt_list_media_partners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the return type ('MediaPartner records') and that status is normalized, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination details, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It includes example queries and a pointer to a related tool without any fluff or repetition.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers purpose, usage, and a brief return type, but omits parameter details, response structure, and pagination behavior. It is adequate but leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 implies the 'brand' parameter through 'brand's programme', but leaves limit, cursor, offset, search, and status meanings undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('media partners (publishers)'), and the scope ('on the brand's programme at Tolt'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the Tolt network and by explicitly pairing with get_programme_performance for a different need.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases ('who is promoting us on Tolt?', 'which publishers are active on our programme?') and provides a clear context for when to use the tool. It also specifies a complementary tool (get_programme_performance) to drill into performance, offering guidance on alternative/companion usage.

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