get_commission_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the authentication mechanism (SYNDICATE_AGENT_KEY) and return value structure (available, pending, lifetime totals in USD). Missing rate limits or error behaviors, but adequate for a simple read operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose ('Return the commission balance'), followed by auth context and return value details. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explicitly detailing the three return categories (available, pending, lifetime) and currency (USD). For a zero-parameter read tool, this is complete.

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?

Zero parameters in schema (baseline 4). Description adds value by explaining how the affiliate is identified (via SYNDICATE_AGENT_KEY), providing semantic context for the implicit authentication context despite empty input 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?

Specific verb 'Return' + resource 'commission balance' + scope 'for the authenticated affiliate'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings which focus on programs (get_program_details, list_merchant_programs), payouts (run_payout_cycle), or tracking (track_agent_conversion) rather than balance inquiry.

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?

Implies authentication requirement by mentioning 'authenticated affiliate' and SYNDICATE_AGENT_KEY, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with run_payout_cycle (which executes payouts vs. this tool which only checks status). No explicit prerequisites stated.

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