check_affiliate_code

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and behavior. 'Check' implies a non-mutating read, but it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, nor does it describe edge cases like case sensitivity or what exactly constitutes 'available.' The simple wording is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the verb.

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 is simple with one well-documented parameter, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the check returns (e.g., a boolean). The agent can infer the likely return type, but the lack of explicit return information leaves a minor completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100% — the 'code' parameter is fully described with format constraints. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('affiliate code') with a clear purpose ('available for registration'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like suggest_affiliate_codes by focusing on validating a specific code rather than generating options.

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 phrase 'available for registration' provides clear context: use this when deciding whether a proposed code can be registered. It implies the appropriate moment to invoke, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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