get_due_affiliate_payouts

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses server-side auth injection, rate-limit throttling, retry behavior on 429/5xx, and error-code semantics for 401/403/404/422. This gives the agent a full behavioral model of the call.

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 labeled sections for behavior, returns, and usage. It is dense but every section provides operationally relevant information, and the read-only warning is 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 one-parameter read-only lookup with strong annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: safe usage, authentication model, throttling, error handling, and response format. No critical information 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?

The only parameter, id, is fully documented in the schema as 'Affiliate Id or email (encoded string)'. The description does not add meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the exact resource (due affiliate payouts), the HTTP endpoint, and the read-only lookup behavior. It also names sibling affiliate payout tools, making the distinction between due, completed, and upcoming payouts clear.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (safe speculative lookups and reporting) and when not to (mutating operations should use the write tool). It also lists related Affiliates tools, giving the agent concrete routing guidance.

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