get_project_affiliate_public

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: full detail response, authentication requirements, and endpoint pattern. It does not cover rate limits or error handling but sufficiently describes the tool's 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?

The description is two sentences with a third line for the example, all essential. It is front-loaded with the core function, then auth, then example. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the response contains (tiers, protections, audiences, tax). It covers auth, endpoint, and parameter usage. The tool is simple with no nested objects, so the description is sufficient for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 50% (project_api_key described, project_affiliate_id only format). The description adds an example and clarifies auth fallback, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not detail the UUID parameter's purpose beyond the tool's function.

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 it loads one managed project affiliate with full details including tiers, protections, audiences, and tax. It specifies the HTTP method and endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_affiliates_breakdown which likely provides aggregated data.

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 (loading a single managed affiliate) and provides critical authentication guidelines (only project API key, not dashboard OAuth). It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternative tools but gives clear context.

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