List affiliates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results are paginated, which is modest added value and says nothing about ordering, total counts, or default page size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 read-only list endpoint with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits pagination mechanics (default per_page of 10, max 100), result ordering, and the existence of filter parameters, which an agent needs to page correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already documents per_page, account, store_id, and user_email; baseline is therefore 3. The description adds nothing about these filters and 'all affiliates' arguably undersells the filtering capability the schema exposes.

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 (Retrieves) and resource (affiliates) plus the list shape and pagination. It is clearly distinguishable from get_affiliate by naming convention, but the description itself never differentiates from the singular sibling or other list_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_affiliate, nor any mention of the filter parameters (account, store_id, user_email) that would steer an agent toward this tool for targeted lookups. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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