affiliate_affilae_list_clicks

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 discloses that the tool returns Click records and supports filtering, but it does not explain pagination behavior, date range semantics, or whether any side effects exist. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but no explicit safety or behavioral details are given.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and includes useful usage examples and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 list tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but leaves important gaps: pagination/date format details, default range, and output structure. It is adequate for a simple read tool but not fully complete.

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 compensate. It maps 'programme' and 'date' to likely parameters (programmeId, from/to), which helps. However, it does not explain the meaning or usage of limit, cursor, or offset, and does not specify date formats or constraints. Some value added, but incomplete.

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 tool lists recent affiliate clicks on Affilae, with optional filtering by programme and date. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from other sibling tools (e.g., list_transactions, get_earnings_summary) and from other networks' list_clicks tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and gives concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going on Affilae?'). It also suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, providing a clear alternative/complementary tool. No explicit when-not guidance, but the context is strong.

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