get_affiliate_payments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it's a GET endpoint, specifies sorting order and pagination behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 with a header line and clear sections. It is somewhat lengthy but each part adds information. The most critical details (purpose, sorting, pagination) are front-loaded.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (list, sorted, paginated) and how to refine results (query params with AND). Missing details on the structure of each payment object, but the description is reasonably complete for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage) with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that multiple query params are combined with AND logic, which is not evident from the schema alone. This aids in constructing queries.

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 the tool retrieves affiliate payments sorted by most recent. It distinguishes from other payment-related tools by focusing on affiliates. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from very similar sibling tools like get_completed_affiliate_payouts or get_upcoming_affiliate_payouts, which could cause ambiguity.

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 provides pagination limits (50 per page) and explains that multiple query parameters are combined with AND. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_payments or get_specific_affiliate_payouts, leaving the agent to infer context.

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