okx_get_affiliate_invitee_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes '[L:READ]', indicating a read-only operation, and implies a dependency on agent_catalog. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as error conditions, pagination, or required authentication beyond the dependency.

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 short (one line) and uses cryptic tags and Chinese text. While concise, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The structure with tags and arrow is reasonable but could be more readable.

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 that there is no output schema and no parameters, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of invitee details) and any relevant context. It only provides a category and a prerequisite, leaving significant gaps about the output format and usage context.

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are none, a baseline score of 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 name 'okx_get_affiliate_invitee_list' is descriptive enough to indicate it retrieves a list of affiliate invitees, but the description adds only cryptic tags ('[L:READ] CAT:[推广]') and a dependency instruction. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like okx_get_affiliate_invitee_detail or okx_get_affiliate_link_list.

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 includes a prerequisite instruction ('→ 请先调用 agent_catalog'), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternative tools.

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