affiliate_admitad_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does add useful behavioral context by stating it returns an array of Programme records and can list either joined or available programmes. However, it omits pagination behavior, authentication requirements, and any side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for a 6-parameter 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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, usage examples, and related-tool guidance without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the core action and keeps supplementary guidance brief and relevant.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and six undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It explains the high-level return type and companion tools, but not parameter meaning, pagination, or how 'joined' vs 'available' is controlled, making it incomplete for confident invocation beyond a default no-parameter call.

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 does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The description only characterizes the result set, not how the parameters influence it, providing no value beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource ('List affiliate programmes') and clearly scopes to Admitad publisher programmes, including joined or available ones. It also differentiates from sibling tools like get_programme and list_transactions by stating its list-level 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?

Explicit use cases are given with example user questions ('which merchants am I working with?'). It also suggests complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., advertiser-side tools or other networks), so it's slightly shy of a 5.

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