affiliate_adcell_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns an array of Programme records and that it may also list programmes available to join. However, it omits potentially important behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default limits, filtering semantics, or any side effects, though as a read-only list tool the risk is relatively low.

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 long, efficiently front-loading the core purpose, then providing concrete usage examples and pairing information. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Although the description covers the tool's overall purpose and usage context well, it is incomplete for a tool with six optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain parameter semantics, return record structure, or pagination, leaving the agent without critical invocation and interpretation details. Given the complexity (6 params, no annotations, no output schema), more depth is required.

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 provides no explanation of any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The agent is left without any guidance on how to use these filters or what values are accepted, especially for status and categories which are not self-explanatory. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 Adcell, with the specific scope of programmes the publisher has joined or that are available to join. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling list_programmes tools by explicitly naming Adcell and providing example user queries.

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 clear examples of when to use the tool ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Adcell?', 'partner inventory') and suggests related tools for drill-down and activity (get_programme, list_transactions). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternative network-specific list tools, so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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