affiliate_avantlink_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can return programmes the publisher has joined or which are available to join, and that it returns an array of Programme records. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default sorting, or what happens with the 'status' parameter. The transparency is partial, so a score of 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 three sentences, all of which carry meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes usage triggers and related-tool context without fluff. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description would need to provide more detail to be complete. It states the return type and mentions the dual nature (joined vs available), but it omits how the optional parameters affect results, what the default response looks like, and any limits or pagination. It is functional but not fully complete for a 6-parameter list tool.

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 the 6 parameters. It does not explain 'limit', 'cursor', 'offset', 'search', 'status', or 'categories' beyond what their names imply. The phrase 'available to join' hints at status filtering but is not explicit. This is a significant gap, so parameter semantics are weak.

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 AvantLink that the publisher has joined or is available to join. It uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource (affiliate programmes on AvantLink), distinguishing it from sibling list_programmes for other networks. Example user queries are provided, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 'Use this when the user asks...' and provides concrete example phrases. It also directs to related tools: 'pairs naturally with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity', effectively indicating when to use alternatives. This is clear usage guidance.

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