affiliate_adtraction-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read-only fetch and discloses the return type ('ProgrammePerformanceRow records') and data granularity (by date). However, it does not mention pagination (limit/cursor/offset), auth requirements, or potential rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage triggers, and complementary tools/return type. No fluff, tautology, or unnecessary repetition.

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 the primary use case nicely and mentions return type, but with no output schema and 0% param coverage, it leaves important operational details undocumented, such as default date ranges, pagination behavior, and the meaning of optional parameters. It is adequate for simple queries but incomplete for advanced usage.

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 doesn't explain the eight parameters. It only hints at date filtering ('by date') and publisher filtering ('per-publisher') but fails to specify formats for 'to'/'from', the meaning of 'brand', or the usage of 'limit', 'cursor', 'offset', 'programmeId', and 'publisherId'. This is a substantial gap given the param count.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Adtraction (advertiser)' and lists concrete metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and date basis. It clearly distinguishes from transaction-level tools by describing it as a per-publisher rollup.

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?

Explicitly provides trigger examples ('Use this when the user asks ...') with exact queries like 'show me the top-earning partners last month'. It also points to complementary tools: 'pair with list_media_partners to discover publisher ids and list_transactions for transaction-level drill-down.'

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