affiliate_2performant_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only action ('has joined') and states the return shape ('array of Programme records'), but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit, filtering semantics, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. This adds some context but leaves significant behavioral details undisclosed.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: first states the core action, second gives user-intent triggers, third gives output and integration hints. It is front-loaded with the main verb and free of fluff.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a useful overview, return type, and sibling pairings, but lacks parameter guidance, return field details, and auth/pagination context. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves clear gaps for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). It only vaguely implies filtering via 'has joined (or available to join)', but does not map this to the status parameter or any other. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 verb and resource: 'List affiliate programmes' for the publisher on 2Performant. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the network in the tool name and in the description, and adds scope nuance ('has joined... or which are available to join'). It also explicitly mentions the return type ('array of Programme records').

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios with example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on 2Performant?', 'wants a partner inventory'). It also mentions natural pairings with get_programme and list_transactions, which helps an agent choose between tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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