affiliate_adtraction_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions it 'Returns Click records' and implies a read-only listing, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default time window, or auth requirements. It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves important operational details unspecified.

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, each adding value: purpose, usage guidance, and return type. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no unnecessary words or 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and use case, but lacks details on pagination (cursor/offset), date format, default filtering behavior, and exact return structure ('Click records' is vague). An agent would likely need additional clarification to use the tool fully.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions 'optionally filtered by programme and date', covering programmeId and from/to, but does not explain limit, cursor, or offset. With 6 parameters, this is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 recent affiliate clicks on Adtraction', with a specific resource and optional filters. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming Adtraction and providing concrete use cases, e.g., checking if links are being clicked.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with example queries, and recommends pairing with 'list_transactions' for comparing clicks vs conversions. This provides clear context and a complementary alternative.

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