affiliate_avantlink_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature (listing), the return type (Click records), and the 'recent' default scope. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, date format, or any potential rate limits. Still, it offers more than a minimal listing statement.

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 purpose, then usage context, return type, and pairing advice. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a sibling tool. Missing details on parameter formats and pagination, but the description is sufficient for a basic agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaning to some parameters: 'optionally filtered by programme and date' maps to programmeId and from/to. It does not explain limit, cursor, or offset, which remain opaque. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves pagination semantics undocumented.

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 AvantLink' – a specific verb, resource, and platform. It further distinguishes from siblings by noting optional filtering by programme and date, and by returning Click records rather than transactions.

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 frames the tool for traffic-side debugging with concrete example questions, and explicitly recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative tool.

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