affiliate_tradedoubler-advertiser_list_media_partners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns MediaPartner records with normalised status, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention pagination behavior, auth requirements, or potential side effects. This is a moderate disclosure for a list 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 three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage examples, and the third covers return type and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description only addresses the brand parameter and vaguely mentions return records. It lacks coverage of pagination (limit, cursor, offset), filtering (search, status), and the meaning of 'normalised status', making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 only clarifies the 'brand' parameter implicitly via 'brand's programme' but provides no explanation for 'limit', 'cursor', 'offset', 'search', or 'status'. This leaves most parameters semantically opaque.

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 that the tool lists media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Tradedoubler (Advertiser). It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource and network, distinguishing it from sibling list_media_partners 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 concrete example user queries ('who is promoting us...', 'which publishers are active on our programme?') and recommends pairing with the matching get_programme_performance tool for deeper analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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