ghl_affiliate_list_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the required Sub-Account token, the affiliate-manager.readonly OAuth scope, and the need to page through results for full sets.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then auth, scope, and pagination in short lines. The endpoint/version/source metadata is mildly verbose but functional for an agent verifying the call.

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?

Covers the non-obvious prerequisites (token type, scope, pagination) for a 9-parameter read tool with no output schema. Filter behavior is left entirely to the fully-documented schema, which is acceptable.

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 filter parameters (query, parentId, mediaType, campaignId, showGlobal, sortByType) are already documented. The description adds actionable semantics by calling out skip/limit as pagination controls to page through full result sets, which is genuine guidance beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List affiliate media', 'Retrieve media files and folders') scoped to a location. It is clearly distinguishable from write-side affiliate siblings such as ghl_affiliate_delete_media and ghl_affiliate_update_media, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied by the auth requirements ('Requires a Sub-Account (location) token') and pagination advice, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives like the general media listing tools.

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