get_leads_per_affiliate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: sorting order (most recent first), pagination limit (20 per page), and the HTTP endpoint (GET /v2/affiliates/{id}/leads). It does not contradict 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 very concise: two sentences plus a header line. Each sentence adds meaningful information (read-only, endpoint, retrieval scope, sorting, pagination). No superfluous text.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the behavior: what is returned (leads per affiliate), in what order (sorted by creation date descending), and pagination (20 per page). It does not mention error cases or the exact structure of lead objects, but the essential behavior is clear.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'id' and 'page'. The description adds context about pagination (sorted order, limit 20) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool retrieves all leads per affiliate, with explicit sorting (most recent first) and pagination (20 per page). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_leads' and 'get_customers_per_affiliate' by specifying the resource and filtering by affiliate id.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_leads' or 'get_customers_per_affiliate'. It implies the context (per affiliate) but lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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