affiliate_2performant_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('List') and return type ('Returns Click records'), which is useful. However, it omits pagination behavior (cursor/limit/offset), the default time window implied by 'recent,' and any auth prerequisites.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: core purpose first, then concrete use-case examples, then return-type and cross-tool guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description must cover a lot. It succeeds on use-case guidance and naming return records, but leaves gaps on pagination mechanics, date format, and what fields a 'Click record' contains. It is adequate for deciding whether to call, but incomplete for correct invocation with all six parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds conceptual meaning for programme and date filtering (programmeId, from/to) but gives no format or syntax details. The pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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+resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on 2Performant' and adds scope with 'optionally filtered by programme and date.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling list_* tools by naming the network (2Performant) and from 2Performant's own list_programmes/list_transactions tools by targeting the click resource.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?'). It also names an alternative/complement: 'pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions,' which tells the agent when to use a different tool.

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