affiliate_cake_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns Click records and focuses on recent, filterable data, but does not describe default date ranges, pagination behavior, or parameter edge cases. This is adequate for a read-only list tool but lacks further depth.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Core function, filters, use case, and cross-reference are all packed efficiently.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 6 undocumented parameters. The description covers the core purpose and usage context but omits parameter format details, pagination, and return field specifics. It is sufficient for selection but not fully complete for invocation.

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. It explains that programmeId and date range (from/to) filter results, but does not explain limit, cursor, or offset beyond their schema names. This partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List...'), names the resource ('affiliate clicks on CAKE'), and mentions optional filters ('by programme and date'). It also distinguishes from the sibling list_transactions by stating it returns Click records.

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 the use case for traffic-side debugging with concrete questions ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going on CAKE?') and recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, providing a clear alternative.

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