affiliate_adservice_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type ('array of Programme records') and the joined/available distinction, which is useful. However, it omits pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or how status filtering affects results, leaving significant behavioral aspects unstated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by concrete usage examples and companion tool links. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It provides strong purpose and usage context, but lacks parameter semantics and edge-case details, making it only partially complete for an agent to invoke the tool without further guessing.

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 mention any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, no allowed values, formats, or semantics are provided, and the description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 affiliate programmes on Adservice, specifying both 'joined' and 'available to join' scopes. It uses a specific verb+resource+platform structure and naturally distinguishes itself from the many other network-specific list_programmes siblings.

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 usage triggers are provided via example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Adservice?') and related tools (get_programme, list_transactions) are named for drill-down and activity. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives for other networks, so it falls short of a 5.

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