get_affiliates

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent safety, and the description meaningfully goes beyond them: auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled to LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap and retried on 429/5xx, responses are paginated at 20 per page, and non-2xx behavior is specified with status codes and error payloads. This is substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the method and read-only nature, then flows clearly through behavior, auth, parameters, return values, errors, and usage. Every section carries distinct operational information, and the structured labels make it easy to scan without being bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the HTTP status plus JSON response, error semantics for auth/permissions/not-found/invalid input, pagination mechanics, and ordering. It also places the tool among related affiliate siblings, giving an agent enough context to invoke it 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?

The only parameter, page, is already fully documented in the schema with a default and behavior. The description adds the practical guidance to 'walk them with page' and states the 20-per-page limit, which clarifies how to paginate beyond the schema's basic default-value note.

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 states a specific read operation (GET /v2/affiliates) that returns the school's affiliates, with ordering and pagination details. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_affiliate_payments or get_leads_per_affiliate because those focus on per-affiliate derived data rather than the core affiliate list.

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 says when to use it: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting.' It also says when not to use it — 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool' — and lists related Affiliate tools, helping an agent route correctly among siblings.

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