affiliate_adtraction-advertiser_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Click records, uses 'recent' as a time scope, and supports optional programme/date filtering. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination behavior, auth/side effects, defaults, or whether results are sorted.

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. Each sentence adds value: function, use case, and return/pairing. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps. It explains the high-level purpose and return type but fails to cover essential invocation details such as the meaning of the required 'brand' parameter and pagination controls, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only refers to 'programme and date' filters without mapping them to specific parameters (programmeId, from, to). The required 'brand' parameter is completely unexplained, and pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) are not addressed at all.

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 verb and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Adtraction (advertiser)' and specifies optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings by network/advertiser scope and the pairing note with list_transactions helps separate clicks from conversions.

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 usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions for comparison. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, 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.