Get an affiliate

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the response includes referrals, commissions, and payout details, and that email is the sole identifier, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the verb, target, and outcome; the second provides essential domain context. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

For a read-only single-record fetch, the description, combined with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly. It states what is returned and why email is required, with no output schema needing additional return-shape explanation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both email and account. The description adds the identity rationale for email but no new syntax or parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: "Get one affiliate's full record by email," and names the record contents (referrals, commissions, payout details). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_affiliates and create_affiliate by making the retrieval scope explicit.

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 establishes a clear usage context: this is the tool to use when you have an affiliate's email and want their complete record. It also states the identity model ('Email is the only way ThriveCart identifies an affiliate'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as search_affiliates for when the email is unknown.

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