affiliate_awin_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states that the tool returns an array of Programme records and covers both joined and available programmes, but fails to disclose pagination behavior, default status filtering, or how to distinguish joined vs available results. The description offers minimal behavioral context beyond the basic list operation.

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 two well-structured sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, includes practical query examples, and briefly notes the return type and sibling tool relationships—every clause earns its place.

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?

Despite clear purpose, the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description lacks essential operational details: how filtering works, pagination, or how joined vs available programmes are selected. This is insufficient for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool with appropriate parameters.

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% with 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) and no parameter-level descriptions. The description does not mention any of these parameters or explain how they affect results, providing zero compensation for the missing schema information.

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 Awin, distinguishing between joined and available-to-join. It provides concrete user query examples and explicitly contrasts with related tools (get_programme and list_transactions), making its purpose unambiguous relative to the many sibling list_programmes 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given with real user phrasing like 'which merchants am I working with?' and 'what programmes do I have on Awin?'. It also pairs with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, indicating appropriate alternatives and natural workflows.

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