get_affiliate_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial context on top: auth injected server-side rather than by the model, throttling under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retry behavior on 429/5xx, sort order (most recent first), 50-per-page pagination, AND semantics for combined query params, and precise HTTP error mappings (401/403/404/422). No contradiction with annotations; 'creates, changes and deletes nothing' aligns with readOnlyHint=true.

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 well-structured into labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when, Related tools) and front-loads the READ-ONLY badge and HTTP endpoint. It is longer than average, but each section earns its place by covering safety, pagination, error semantics, and usage routing. Minor redundancy: 'Get affiliate payments' followed immediately by 'Returns a list with all the affiliate payments' is a near restatement.

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 simple 2-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: return format ('HTTP <status> followed by the LearnWorlds JSON response body'), non-2xx error handling with status codes, pagination parameters, ordering, safety profile, and when to use it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (id and page) are already fully documented including the default value and last-page fallback behavior. The description adds only a marginal hint ('walk them with `page`') and the AND-operator note for query params, which is useful but not necessary given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get affiliate payments. Returns a list with all the affiliate payments.' The phrase 'all the affiliate payments' distinguishes it from the status-filtered sibling payout tools (due/upcoming/completed), and five related affiliate tools are named explicitly, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit directive: 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting. Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' This clearly states when the tool is appropriate and what it is not for. However, it does not spell out exclusions against the sibling payout tools (e.g., when to choose get_due_affiliate_payouts over this one), leaving that discrimination to inference.

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