affiliate_admitad_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds that the tool returns Click records and is for recent clicks, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'recent' means in terms of a default time window.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage context, return type, and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, use cases, and return type, but lacks details on parameter formats, pagination, and any constraints or defaults. It is adequate but leaves noticeable gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly in all situations.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for 'programme' and 'date' (likely mapping to programmeId and from/to), which is valuable. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, or offset, leaving pagination parameters semantically undocumented.

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, with optional filtering by programme and date. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the specific network (Admitad) and the traffic-side debugging use case, and explicitly references pairing with list_transactions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions. It also directs the agent to pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, effectively naming an alternative for a different purpose.

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