get_completed_affiliate_payouts

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: sorted order (most recent first), pagination with limit of 20, and the exact HTTP method/path. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a header line followed by a brief explanation. However, there is slight redundancy (repeating 'Get completed affiliate payouts'), but overall it is efficient and 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 simple, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns (list of completed payouts), ordering, pagination, and even the HTTP path. No gaps remain.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating 'the provided affiliate', so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 'Get completed affiliate payouts' and provides extensive context including the HTTP endpoint, sorting order, and pagination. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_due_affiliate_payouts or get_upcoming_affiliate_payouts by explicitly targeting completed payouts.

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 implies when to use (for completed payouts) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. It lacks guidance compared to siblings like get_due_affiliate_payouts, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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