ghl_affiliate_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), OAuth scope (affiliate-manager.readonly), and pagination mechanics, which go beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 relatively concise, with two main sentences plus technical details (endpoint, OAuth, pagination). It could be more structured, but it efficiently conveys core information without excessive verbosity.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain many input parameters (e.g., query, active, date filters) and does not describe the return format or behavior beyond pagination. This leaves the agent underinformed for effective 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?

Input schema coverage is low (25%), with only locationId and limit having descriptions. The description adds pagination context for skip and limit but does not explain the meaning or usage of query, active, toDate, fromDate, and campaignId, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states 'List Affiliates' and 'Retrieve the list of affiliates for a location,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. The name and title align, and the tool is distinct from siblings like ghl_affiliate_get (single affiliate) and ghl_affiliate_commission_list (commissions).

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 provides context by mentioning endpoint, OAuth scope, and pagination, implying usage for listing affiliates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_affiliate_get for a single affiliate) or when not to use it.

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