affiliate_affise_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description correctly identifies the operation as listing clicks and states the return type as 'Click records.' It does not disclose pagination behavior, the meaning of 'recent,' time-range defaults, or auth/read-only context, which are important for a read tool lacking annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then a concrete use case, and a sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place and the example questions make the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose and return type but omits pagination semantics, date format details, and a fuller description of Click records. It is sufficient for basic selection but not fully complete for robust 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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description only maps 'programme and date' to programmeId and from/to. It says nothing about limit, cursor, or offset, leaving pagination semantics and parameter formats to be guessed.

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 'List recent affiliate clicks on Affise, optionally filtered by programme and date,' naming a specific action, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this from the Affise list_transactions sibling and other network-specific click 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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions, and recommends pairing with list_transactions for clicks-vs-conversions comparison. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or when to prefer list_transactions alone.

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