get_upcoming_affiliate_payouts

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior: creates/changes/deletes nothing, server-side auth injection, throttling under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retries on 429/5xx, and detailed response and error semantics. This goes well beyond structured hints.

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?

Information is well-organized under labeled sections and front-loaded with the endpoint and read-only marker. It is slightly redundant—the opening sentence repeats what 'Get upcoming affiliate payouts' already says and the behavior section reiterates read-only—but there is no filler.

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 tool, it covers return format, failure modes, throttling, and use context. It stops short of describing the output body's shape or explicitly distinguishing upcoming from due/completed payouts, but those are minor gaps given the simple scope.

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 single parameter is already fully described in the schema ('Affiliate Id or email (encoded string)'), so the schema carries the burden. The description only restates that payouts are looked up by affiliate id and adds no encoding, format, or usage detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get upcoming affiliate payouts') and backs it with the exact GET endpoint. It is clear about the scope ('specified by the provided affiliate id'), but it does not explicitly differentiate upcoming from the sibling get_due_affiliate_payouts/get_completed_affiliate_payouts beyond the name.

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?

Explicitly labels 'Use when' and provides clear context: safe for speculative lookups and reporting, not for mutations, with a pointer to a write tool. It lists related affiliate tools but doesn't give the selection rule among upcoming/due/completed payout variants.

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