affiliate_accesstrade_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Returns Click records' and mentions optional filters, but does not clarify whether this is read-only, how 'recent' is bounded, pagination behavior, or any authentication/rate-limit implications. The description offers little beyond the tool's basic function.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concrete use case and a helpful pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination controls, the meaning of 'recent', default limits, or the shape of the returned Click records. The traffic-debugging context is useful, but significant operational details are 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and no parameter descriptions. The description vaguely mentions filtering by 'programme and date', which hints at programmeId and from/to, but provides no semantics for limit, cursor, offset, or date formats. It does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema detail across all six parameters.

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 recent affiliate clicks on AccessTrade', with optional filters by programme and date. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling transaction tools by explicitly framing it for traffic-side debugging and referencing list_transactions for comparison.

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 gives explicit use cases ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going on AccessTrade?') and suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative click-listing tools.

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