affiliate_amazon-creators_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that it returns Click records and supports optional programme/date filtering, but it omits details about pagination behavior, default date ranges, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: the action and filters, the use case, and the return type with a pairing suggestion. No fluff or 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?

The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do substantial work. It covers the core purpose, filters, and return type, but misses essential details about pagination parameters and output structure, leaving the description only partially complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It only vaguely implies the meaning of programmeId and date filters (to/from) via 'filtered by programme and date', leaving limit, cursor, and offset completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to use pagination correctly.

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 recent affiliate clicks on Amazon Creators, with a specific verb (List) and resource (clicks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_transactions by focusing on the traffic side, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use it for traffic-side debugging with concrete example questions, which is strong contextual guidance. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions for clicks vs. conversions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a direct alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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