affiliate_afilio_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Returns Click records' and mentions optional filtering by programme and date, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default time windows, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read-only list operation, this is somewhat adequate but lacks depth.

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 function and augmented with a use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and use case but omits return structure, pagination details, and parameter semantics. It is not complete enough for a fully autonomous agent to invoke with confidence across all parameters.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only indirectly covers programmeId and date filters via 'optionally filtered by programme and date.' It does not explain 'limit', 'cursor', 'offset', or 'to'/'from' syntax. This leaves a significant gap for parameter understanding.

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 recent affiliate clicks on Afilio, optionally filtered by programme and date.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate clicks on Afilio'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by mentioning 'pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions.'

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging — e.g. "are my links being clicked at all?" or "where is traffic going on Afilio?"' It also recommends pairing with list_transactions, providing clear context. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the use cases are well-defined.

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