affiliate_cj-advertiser_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('List'), returns Click records, and supports optional filtering. However, it does not explain pagination behavior (cursor/offset), default date ranges, or authentication requirements, which are relevant for a list tool with 7 parameters.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding usage context and return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a list tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, usage, and return type, which is valuable. However, it does not mention required brand, pagination, or date format, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without further inference.

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 mentions 'filtered by programme and date' (mapping to programmeId and to/from), but it omits the required 'brand' parameter and fails to explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset). This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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') and resource ('recent affiliate clicks on CJ Affiliate (advertiser)'), clearly distinguishing it from the publisher-facing CJ list_clicks tool. It also mentions optional filtering by programme and date, which aligns with the schema fields.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for click-vs-conversion comparison. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention the alternative CJ (publisher) list_clicks tool.

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