amazon_affiliate_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation by saying 'Return a full overview' and 'diagnose,' which implies no side effects. It also discloses what information is returned, though it does not explicitly state that it never modifies the configuration or mention response format.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and contents, and the second gives practical use cases. It is front-loaded with the verb and immediately informative.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what is returned and why it might be used. It could be slightly more explicit about being a read-only diagnostic tool, but the current wording is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the description need not compensate for missing parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource ('active Amazon affiliate configuration') plus the exact content covered (tags, countries, domains, currencies, commission rates, tips). It also distinguishes itself from shopping-oriented sibling tools by focusing on configuration and diagnostics.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'to show users which countries are active or to diagnose missing affiliate tags.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with this configuration-focused purpose, so the guidance is clear.

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