affiliate_addrevenue_list_clicks

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions returns 'Click records' and the traffic-debugging use case, but does not clarify read-only status, auth requirements, pagination behavior, or what 'recent' means. This is adequate but has gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns/partners with. No fluff or repetition.

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?

With 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination defaults, date range behavior, authentication prerequisites, or what fields are in a Click record. The use-case framing is helpful but operational detail is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optionally filtered by programme and date' which loosely maps to programmeId and from/to, but the pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) are completely unexplained. The mapping from 'date' to from/to is also implicit.

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's function: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Addrevenue' with optional filtering. It includes specific example use cases ('are my links being clicked at all?') and distinguishes from list_transactions by recommending pairing to compare clicks vs conversions.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and provides concrete example questions. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions for click-vs-conversion analysis, giving clear practical context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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