affiliate_adtraction_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It clarifies the scope (joined or available programmes) and return type (array of Programme records), which is useful. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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: first states the core function, second gives concrete use cases, third notes return type and related tools. The structure is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a tool with 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a useful high-level overview and names the return type, but it lacks parameter semantics, pagination guidance, and any detail on the Programme record structure. It is enough for selection but not for fully informed invocation.

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 lists six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The phrase 'joined or available' hints at possible status filtering but never explicitly maps to the status parameter. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Adtraction (or which are available to join).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list_programmes tools by naming the Adtraction network and from get_programme by its listing scope. Example user queries reinforce the purpose.

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 provides explicit trigger phrases ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Adtraction?') and tells the agent when to pair with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, effectively naming alternatives. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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