affiliate_adservice_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it returns Click records and mentions optional filters, but it does not mention pagination behavior, default date range limits, authentication requirements, or that it is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies this). It provides some behavioral context, but not the depth expected for an unannotated 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, front-loaded with the main function, then a practical use case, then return type and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and use case but omits important details like parameter formats, pagination mechanics, and the structure of Click records. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for a complex 6-parameter tool.

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 clarifies 'programme and date' which likely maps to programmeId and from/to, but the other parameters (limit, cursor, offset) are left completely unexplained. The description adds only partial meaning for 2 of 6 parameters, leaving the agent to guess the format and semantics of the pagination fields.

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 names the exact action ('List recent affiliate clicks'), the network ('Adservice'), and the scope ('optionally filtered by programme and date'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions by positioning it for traffic-side debugging, and the pairing hint with list_transactions reinforces its unique role.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('traffic-side debugging') with concrete examples, and suggests pairing with list_transactions for clicks vs conversions. It does not explicitly say 'don't use this for conversions', but the pairing instruction implies that distinction. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool over alternatives.

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