affiliate_afilio_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (array of Programme records) but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, default behavior, or filtering semantics beyond the ambiguous 'joined or available to join' scope. This is sufficient for a basic list operation 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and enriched with usage examples and related tools. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is underspecified for correct invocation. It explains why to use the tool but not how to configure it (e.g., what 'status' values are allowed, how pagination works), leaving a significant gap for a tool with this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The agent gets no guidance on what these parameters control, how to use pagination, or valid values, making parameter usage highly guesswork.

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 lists affiliate programmes on Afilio, with the scope including both joined and available-to-join programmes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pairing with get_programme and list_transactions, and provides concrete example user queries.

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 states when to use this tool ('when the user asks...') and names alternatives for drill-down (get_programme) and activity (list_transactions), giving clear guidance on selection vs. other tools.

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