affiliate_cj-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow), the metric fields, and the by-date aggregation, which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default date ranges, whether zero-activity publishers are included, or any authorization requirements. For a read operation, the description is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage triggers, then complementary tools. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or padding. It is well-structured for an agent to quickly parse.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the primary use case, return type, and related tools, but it does not document several parameters (limit, cursor, offset, programmeId) or explain pagination/error behavior. The absence of an output schema also means the description should clarify the shape of ProgrammePerformanceRow, which it does not. Adequate for the core case but incomplete for complex invocations.

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 adds meaning for brand (via 'the brand's programme'), from/to (implied by 'by date'), and publisherId (via the reference to list_media_partners). However, it does not explain the semantics of limit, cursor, offset, or programmeId, which are non-obvious and left entirely to the schema. Thus, it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch per-publisher performance') and a clear resource ('the brand's programme at CJ Affiliate (advertiser)'), listing the exact metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and the aggregation level (by date, per-publisher). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions or get_earnings_summary, which serve different aggregation or drill-down purposes.

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 says 'Use this when...' and provides three concrete user query examples. It also names related tools for complementary tasks: list_media_partners for publisher IDs and list_transactions for transaction-level drill-down, implicitly clarifying when not to use this tool (when transactional detail is needed).

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