affiliate_awin_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns Click records, lists recent clicks, and supports optional filters. While it doesn't mention pagination or default time windows, it clearly implies a read-only listing operation and provides useful context beyond the bare name.

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 long, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence contributes value (purpose, use cases, output/pairing). There is no redundancy or filler.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description could be more complete. It explains the tool's purpose and output type but does not describe pagination parameters, default behavior, or the structure of Click records. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves notable gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'programme and date' filters, which maps to programmeId and from/to, but it completely ignores limit, cursor, and offset pagination parameters. This leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly with cursor-based pagination.

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 Awin, with optional filtering by programme and date. It also provides concrete use cases ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going?') that distinguish it from transaction-focused tools like list_transactions and from other networks' list_clicks tools.

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 says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and gives example diagnostic questions. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, naming an alternative and establishing when this tool is appropriate.

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