affiliate_affiliate-future_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns an array of Programme records') and implies a read-only operation via 'List'. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or clarify whether 'joined' and 'available to join' are both returned or mutually exclusive, which could confuse the agent.

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 moderately concise with two sentences. It leads with the core action, then provides usage examples and related tools. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence adds value.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return type. However, it lacks parameter explanations, pagination details, and clarification of the joined-vs-available ambiguity, leaving gaps for a fully informed tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). It does not explain what these parameters filter or how to use them, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Affiliate Future (or which are available to join)' with a specific verb, resource, and network scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming Affiliate Future and providing example user queries that map to the tool's 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user asks...' followed by concrete example queries. It also recommends pairing with get_programme and list_transactions, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate relative to alternatives.

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