list_affiliate_programs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all programs and includes status and commission details, and mentions 'Free' which may indicate no cost. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or if the list is paginated. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence that immediately states the action ('List') and the data returned. There is no wasted text. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return format. It mentions three fields (commission rates, affiliate system type, status) but does not specify whether the response is an array, paginated, or includes any nested objects. For a tool with no parameters, the description is somewhat complete but could be more thorough.

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?

The input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by stating what the tool returns, which is beyond the schema. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics; the baseline is high.

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 tool lists all registered affiliate programs and specifies the fields returned: commission rates, affiliate system type, and status. The word 'list' and the mention of specific attributes make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'call_affiliate_product' or 'estimate_commission' which have more specific actions.

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 description implies that this tool is for retrieving a full list of programs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings. For example, it doesn't say 'use this when you need an overview, and use search_opportunities for filtered queries.' The context of sibling tools suggests differentiation, but the description itself provides no usage guidance.

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