affiliate_admitad-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting programmes may be joined or available to join and that the result is an array of Programme records. However, it omits read-only status, pagination behavior, auth needs, and any side effects, which is a gap for a list tool.

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, each earning its place: it states the core function, gives concrete usage prompts, and notes return type plus related tools. It is well-structured and free of 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?

The description covers purpose and usage context well, but with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, it lacks enough information for confident invocation. Parameter semantics and behavioral details are essential for this tool and are largely 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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters, including the required brand parameter. The agent gets no guidance on how to set limit, cursor, offset, search, status, or categories, making correct invocation difficult.

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 it lists affiliate programmes on Admitad (advertiser), gives example user queries, and specifies the return type. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling affiliate_admitad_list_programmes, but the scope and use cases are specific enough to identify this tool.

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?

Provides explicit trigger examples ('which merchants am I working with?') and suggests natural companion tools (get_programme, list_transactions). It does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from other list_programmes siblings, but the context is clear.

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