affiliate_affise_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add some context: it lists both joined and available-to-join programmes, and states that it 'Returns an array of Programme records.' However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is minimal but non-zero behavioral transparency, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes usage guidance and related tools without any fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what the tool does, and the second covers when to use it and what it pairs with. This is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so a complete description is critical. While the purpose and return type are stated, the description ignores parameter semantics, pagination, and filtering behavior, leaving an agent unable to fully understand how to use the tool beyond a simple call. This is a significant gap, making the description incomplete for operational use.

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 has 0% description coverage for its 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories), and the description does not explain any of them. It only mentions the return type and use cases, providing no semantic meaning for the parameters. Given the low coverage, the description was expected to compensate but fails to do so, resulting in a score of 1.

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's function: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Affise (or which are available to join).' This is a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes it from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks. It also provides example user queries to 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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: 'Use this when the user asks "which merchants am I working with?", "what programmes do I have on Affise?", or wants a partner inventory.' It also mentions complementary tools (get_programme, list_transactions) for drill-down and activity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative network-specific tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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