affiliate_adtraction-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (array of Programme records) and the distinction between joined and available programmes, but it does not address auth requirements, pagination, or potential side effects. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is moderate but not rich context.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes relevant examples without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. While the purpose and usage guidance are excellent, the complete absence of parameter semantics and lack of return record details make the description insufficiently complete for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter, including the required 'brand', nor do the example queries illuminate how parameters like status, categories, or pagination work. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 action (list), resource (affiliate programmes), and scope (Adtraction advertiser). It provides example user queries that trigger this tool and distinguishes it from the non-advertiser sibling by explicitly naming 'Adtraction (advertiser)'.

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 when-to-use guidance with concrete user phrasings, and mentions complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), which helps the agent choose among alternatives.

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