getAffiliateUserList

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: permission requirements, pagination behavior, default values, conditional field inclusion/exclusion, and fixed currency in commission map. It even advises on performance overhead, leaving no important ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then pagination, optional data, and finally clear bulleted notes. Every sentence contributes without redundancy.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers authentication, pagination, parameter interactions, and response behavior comprehensively. It equips an agent with enough detail to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 0%, but the description extensively explains cursor, need30/need365/needDeposit, and date range parameters. Only 'size' is not explicitly described, though the schema provides its constraints. The description adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'list of all direct client users under the current affiliate account', making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like getAffiliateUserInfo, so a distinction is lacking.

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 clear context for usage: requires affiliate permission, cursor-based pagination details, and conditions for optional parameters. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools but offers strong contextual guidance.

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