ghl_affiliate_list_customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds the auth model (sub-account token), the required scope, and the fact that the result set is paginated and must be paged to be complete. It stops short of return shape, ordering, or rate limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the prerequisites follow in a logical order. The endpoint line carries some provenance noise ('source: v3/affiliate-manager-v3.json') that does not help an agent decide or call, but the overall length is proportionate.

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 an 8-parameter filtered list with no output schema, the description covers auth, scope, and pagination adequately; the remaining gaps (filter semantics, default limit of 10) are already documented in the schema. Nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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% with 8 documented parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the pagination intent for skip/limit and says nothing about the filtering parameters (query, status, campaignId, commissionStatus) that would actually change results — that meaning lives entirely in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Retrieve the list of customers for an affiliate' — and pins the scope with the endpoint path. It does not name or differentiate itself from sibling affiliate tools (create_customer_lead, update_customer_state, delete_customer), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It gives real preconditions — 'Requires a Sub-Account (location) token' and the required OAuth scope — plus an explicit instruction to pass skip/limit to page through full result sets. There is no statement of when to prefer this over other affiliate endpoints, but the operational context is clear.

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