get_project_affiliates_breakdown

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Specifies GET method (idempotent), required and optional parameters, and rate limit behavior ('wait Retry-After seconds'). Does not mention authentication or destructive actions, but as a GET it's safe.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter list, example, and rate limit note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema. Description explains input parameters and rate limits but does not describe return values, error responses (beyond 429), or what the breakdown actually contains (e.g., metrics, format). Significant gap in completeness.

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 description compensates partially. Lists optional parameters (sortBy, sortOrder, date filters, dimension filters) and provides an example with project_id, groupBy, dateRange. However, does not explain meaning of each parameter beyond enum values (e.g., sortBy options are metrics).

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?

Clearly states 'Affiliate breakdown for a project' with specific grouping options (audience, tier, region, status). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_affiliate_portal_stats and get_project_affiliate_total_stats.

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?

Explicitly declares required parameter groupBy and lists optional parameters. Provides an example and includes rate limit handling advice (HTTP 429). However, lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and exclusion criteria.

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