affiliate_adcell_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'recent' clicks and the return type ('Click records'), but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Given the presence of cursor and offset parameters, this is a notable gap.

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 with the core action. The example questions and pairing note are concise and add value without wasting 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain pagination, date formats, or return structure beyond 'Click records'. The pairing tip with list_transactions is useful, but overall completeness is insufficient for reliable 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%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers programme and date filters generically, but omits limit, cursor, and offset entirely, leaving pagination semantics undocumented. This undercuts an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 recent Adcell clicks with optional programme and date filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_clicks tools by naming the network and providing contextual examples like 'are my links being clicked at all?'.

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?

Explicitly directs use for traffic-side debugging and suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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