ghl_affiliate_payout_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minor context: it's a GET endpoint with readonly OAuth scopes and pagination parameters. No contradictions. The additional behavioral details are useful but not critical, as annotations already convey the read-only nature.

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 efficient with four sentences: title-like statement, purpose, endpoint details, and pagination guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy with the title 'List Payouts' but overall very concise and easy to parse.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on important params like start/end date filters and status options. It does not describe the response format, which would be helpful given no output schema. The description is adequate for simple usage but incomplete for complex queries or understanding returned data.

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 description coverage is 56% (5 of 9 params have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the pagination params 'skip' and 'limit' as pagination mechanism. However, other params (start, end, status) are not elaborated beyond schema examples. The description improves understanding for pagination but not for other parameters, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves the list of payouts for a location, using the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'payouts'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ghl_affiliate_commission_list' which is for commissions, not payouts. The endpoint and OAuth scopes further reinforce the purpose.

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 implies usage through the context of listing payouts and mentions pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, though the name and purpose are clear enough for basic selection.

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