Get User Affiliates

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses authentication requirements, per-call cost behavior (usually 1 unit, cost estimate in each result), pagination contract, and empty-result semantics. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then cost, then pagination — a sensible order with no filler sentences. 'Read-only.' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and could be dropped, but the overall length is proportionate to the tool's behavior.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description still supplies the pieces an agent needs to call it correctly: auth, cost, single-page paging mechanics, and empty-list behavior. Nothing material is missing for a paginated read endpoint.

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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the cursor/nextCursor loop and the responseFormat enum trade-off. The description's pagination sentence restates the cursor parameter's schema text rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Fetch one page of the accounts affiliated with a business profile' — and anchors it to a recognizable surface ('as on its Affiliates tab'). No sibling tool covers affiliates, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Gives clear usage context: default affiliate group only, empty list for profiles with none, and an explicit instruction for retrieving subsequent pages. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions (e.g., that non-business profiles aren't applicable), and the username-vs-userId routing advice lives only in the schema.

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