getAffiliateUserList

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses the authentication prerequisite, cursor-based pagination flow (`nextPageCursor`), conditional omission of 30/365-day fields when custom dates are supplied, and the fixed currency set in the commission map. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know before calling.

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 leads with the core purpose, then groups related details into compact bullets. No sentence is redundant; each note addresses a distinct usage or behavioral aspect.

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?

For a read-only list endpoint with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers authentication, pagination, defaults, performance cues, and response field behavior. Minor gaps such as date format and `size` meaning prevent a perfect score, but the tool is effectively callable.

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 carries the parameter-explanation burden. It explains `cursor`, `need30`, `need365`, `needDeposit`, `startDate`/`endDate`, and their effects, though `size` is left to the schema's numeric constraints and default.

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 opens with 'Query the list of all direct client users under the current affiliate account,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this tool from sibling getAffiliateUserInfo by targeting a list of all direct users rather than a single user's info.

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 Notes section gives concrete usage rules: requires an API key with `affiliate` permission bound to a Master UID, cursor should start as `""` or `"0"`, and the date-range flags default to false to avoid overhead. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-affiliate member lists, but the context is clear enough for invocation.

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