get_leads_per_affiliate

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'creates, changes and deletes nothing.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations: server-side auth injection, throttle handling, retry behavior, sorting order, pagination limit, and detailed error-surface semantics for 401/403/404/422.

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 clear sections for behavior, parameters, returns, and usage. It is slightly repetitive, restating 'read-only' and the resource name in multiple places, but the added details are relevant and the front-loaded summary makes it easy to parse.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return format, error handling, authentication, rate limiting, sorting, pagination, and safety profile. For a two-parameter read-only endpoint, this gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining pagination behavior: results are paged, 'walk them with `page`,' the list is sorted with most recent first, and each page is limited to 20 leads.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get all leads per affiliate' and 'Retrieves all the leads connected with the affiliate specified by the provided affiliate id.' It also differentiates itself by listing the related Affiliates tools, making its scope clear relative to siblings.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting. Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' It names the related Affiliates tools but does not give specific conditions for choosing one sibling over another, so it falls just short of full routing precision.

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