affiliate_admitad-advertiser_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states it returns Click records and optionally filters, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (cursor/offset), default date range for 'recent', or explicitly confirm read-only safety. The verb 'List' implies read-only, but specifics like response structure are absent.

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, each adds value: the action/filters, the use case, and the return type with a cross-tool hint. No redundant or vague fluff.

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?

While the description gives a clear use case and return type, it omits essential context for the required brand parameter, pagination semantics, and how 'recent' is defined. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves several operational details uncovered.

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 only mentions 'programme and date' filters, corresponding to programmeId, from, and to, but leaves the required brand parameter and pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) unexplained. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 affiliate clicks on Admitad for advertisers, with optional filters. It specifies the resource (clicks), platform (Admitad), and perspective (advertiser), distinguishing it from publisher-level listing tools like affiliate_admitad_list_clicks. The use-case examples reinforce its purpose.

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?

It explicitly says to use it for traffic-side debugging ('are my links being clicked at all?') and directs pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, implicitly distinguishing it from transaction listing tools. This gives the agent clear when-to-use guidance.

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