affiliate_admitad-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records) and key behavior (per-publisher metrics by date). It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but 'Fetch' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the core behavioral scope is well covered.

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 and every sentence earns its place: the first states the function and metrics, the second gives concrete use cases, the third mentions related tools and return type. It is front-loaded, dense but not verbose.

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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, return type, and relationships to sibling tools. Missing details like pagination semantics and date-range defaults are notable gaps, but for a read-oriented fetch tool this is largely sufficient for selection and 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 has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description compensates partially by implying date range (from/to), publisher focus (publisherId), and programme context (programmeId), but it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or parameter formats. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but for this many parameters, more explicit mapping would be needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Admitad (advertiser)'), explicitly listing the metrics included (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and the date dimension. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions or get_earnings_summary by focusing on per-publisher rollup data.

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 scenarios with example phrasings ('how is each publisher performing...', 'show me the top-earning partners last month'), and points to alternatives for related tasks (list_media_partners for publisher IDs, list_transactions for drill-down). This gives the agent actionable selection criteria.

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