ghl_affiliate_commission_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by mentioning pagination ('Pagination params: skip, limit'), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with 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 mostly concise, with a clear title and purpose sentence. The endpoint details and pagination note are relevant, though the version header and source info may be extraneous for AI agents. No unnecessary repetition.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on filter semantics and return structure. While functional for a simple list tool, it does not fully equip the agent for nuanced usage.

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 67%, but the description only addresses 'skip' and 'limit' as pagination parameters. It does not explain the meaning or usage of other parameters like 'query', 'status', 'toDate', 'fromDate', or 'campaignId', leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 action ('Retrieve the list of commissions') and the resource ('for a location'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ghl_affiliate_list' and 'ghl_affiliate_payout_list'. The verb 'Retrieve' is specific and aligns with the read-only nature.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools (e.g., ghl_affiliate_list, ghl_affiliate_payout_list). It includes OAuth scopes and endpoint details but lacks explicit context for selection.

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