affiliate_value-commerce-advertiser_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), notes that status is 'normalised', and implies read-only behavior. It stops short of discussing pagination, auth requirements, or potential side effects, but for a listing tool this is solid added context beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and each sentence earns its place by providing purpose, usage criteria, and a hint at the return shape. No wasted words.

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 description covers purpose, usage triggers, and output type, which is good for a listing tool. However, it lacks any parameter documentation or pagination details, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill the gaps. It is adequate but not fully complete for the 6-parameter signature.

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 six parameters (brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, status). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add meaning about filtering behavior, status values, or pagination semantics, leaving the agent to guess.

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 media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme') and specifies the resource (ValueCommerce advertiser). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on media partners and explicitly naming a complementary tool (get_programme_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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example user queries ('who is promoting us...', 'which publishers are active...') and recommends pairing with a related tool for per-publisher performance, effectively directing the agent on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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