affiliate_awin-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that it returns an array of Programme records, which is helpful, but it omits important behavior such as authentication requirements, pagination behavior, default scoping (joined vs. available), and any filtering semantics. These gaps leave the agent without sufficient understanding of side effects or operational constraints.

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 compact, with three sentences that each add value: the core action, example usage prompts, and related tools. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids verbose explanations, though the list of example questions is slightly redundant with the opening sentence.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the required 'brand' parameter, the distinction between advertisements available vs. joined, or pagination and filtering behavior. The inclusion of return type and related tools is positive, but too much critical context is missing for an agent to use this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about any of the 7 parameters. The required 'brand' parameter is entirely unexplained, and there is no guidance on how 'limit', 'cursor', 'status', or 'categories' affect the results. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 the publisher has joined (or are available), giving a specific verb and resource. The mention of 'Awin (advertiser)' and pairing with get_programme/list_transactions provides some distinction from siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the non-advertiser 'affiliate_awin_list_programmes' tool.

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 provides example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Awin (advertiser)?') and mentions 'wants a partner inventory.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also references related tools for drill-down and activity, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative list_programmes tools.

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