get_completed_affiliate_payouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs a read-only lookup against the live school, creates/changes/deletes nothing, injects auth server-side, throttles under the rate cap, retries on 429/5xx, and explains error statuses. This exceeds what the annotations alone convey and does not contradict them.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then uses labeled sections for Behavior, Returns, and Use when. Every sentence adds value, including the rate-limit and retry details, and there is no redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, one parameter, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return format, pagination and sorting, error semantics, auth handling, rate limiting, and read-only safety. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter, describing it as 'Affiliate Id or email (encoded string)', so the description does not need to add much. The description adds minor context by framing it as 'the provided affiliate' and showing the endpoint path, but the schema already carries the semantic weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get completed affiliate payouts') and immediately clarifies scope: all completed payouts related to a given affiliate. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling payout tools by naming 'completed' and listing related Affiliates tools, so an agent can tell it apart without opening 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting') and when not to ('Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool'). It also names related Affiliates tools as alternatives, including get_due_affiliate_payouts and get_upcoming_affiliate_payouts, giving clear routing context.

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