affiliate_accesstrade_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key nuance: the tool lists both programmes the publisher has joined and those available to join. It also states the return type (array of Programme records). However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, auth requirements, or other safety details, though the list nature implies read-only operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second adds use cases, return type, and related tools. No unnecessary words 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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, return type, and complementary tools, which is good for a list operation. However, given the 6 optional parameters and lack of output schema/annotations, it should explain filtering and pagination semantics to be fully complete. The omission of parameter details is a significant gap.

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 6 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description provides no explanation of limit, cursor, offset, search, status, or categories. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these optional filters.

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 lists affiliate programmes on AccessTrade, specifying both joined and available programmes. It includes concrete example user queries and distinguishes it from other network-specific list_programmes tools. The verb 'List' and resource 'affiliate programmes' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example user intents ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on AccessTrade?'). It also mentions complementary tools (get_programme, list_transactions) for drill-down and activity, though it doesn't 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.