affiliate_affiliate-future_list_clicks

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

Description discloses it returns Click records and supports filtering, but with no annotations it doesn't cover pagination behavior, default date range, or auth requirements. As a read-only list operation, it's reasonably transparent but leaves some behavioral 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?

Three sentences with no fluff; first sentence states purpose, second gives use case, third covers return type and related tool. Very efficient.

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?

Provides purpose, use case, return type, and a cross-reference to list_transactions. However, with 6 params and no output schema, the description lacks pagination details and Click record structure, so an agent may need to infer or experiment.

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?

Description explains that programme and date filters are available, adding meaning to programmeId/from/to. However, pagination params (limit, cursor, offset) are not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema coverage this is a gap.

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?

Clearly states it lists recent affiliate clicks on Affiliate Future, with optional programme/date filters. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and the traffic-debugging context distinguishes it from transaction listing.

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?

Explicitly says to use for traffic-side debugging with example questions, and recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. This gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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