affiliate_belboon_list_programmes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('array of Programme records') and scope (joined/available programmes), but does not mention pagination behavior, filter effects, or authentication requirements. This is useful but not a deep behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives concrete user phrasings, and the third covers return type and related tools. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Description is well-rounded for a list tool: purpose, use cases, return shape, and related tools. It lacks parameter semantics and pagination details, but given no output schema and many sibling tools, it provides enough for correct selection.

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% and the description mentions none of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The 'joined/available' distinction gives conceptual context but does not explain how to use any parameter.

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?

Description opens with 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Belboon (or which are available to join)', giving a specific verb, resource, and network scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_programme (single record drill-down) and list_transactions (activity).

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 states usage triggers with natural-language examples: 'which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Belboon?', or wanting a partner inventory. It also recommends get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, effectively providing alternatives.

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