affiliate_webgains-advertiser_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 full transparency burden. It discloses the return shape ('MediaPartner records with normalised status') and the listing nature of the operation, but omits pagination behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, and explicit read-only confirmation beyond the word 'List'.

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 compact and front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: it explains the purpose, provides usage examples, states the return type, and suggests a partnering tool—all without unnecessary filler.

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?

It covers the core listing purpose, usage, return type, and teams well with the performance tool. However, with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still leaves gaps around parameter semantics and output structure, making it only partially complete for fully autonomous 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% with 6 parameters, and the description only semantically enriches 'brand' and 'status' (e.g., 'running on the brand's programme', 'normalised status'). The pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) and search are left undefined, so the description does not adequately compensate for the missing 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the media partners (publishers) running on the brand's programme at Webgains (advertiser).' It clearly differentiates from sibling list_media_partners tools by naming the network and advertiser context, and it distinguishes itself from performance tools by offering pairing guidance.

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 provides explicit trigger phrases and use cases ('who is promoting us on Webgains?', 'which publishers are active on our programme?', 'wants an outbound roster'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or name exclusion alternatives, but the concrete examples are strong enough to guide routing.

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