affiliate_cj-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('array of Programme records') and that it may include programmes available to join. It does not mention pagination, authentication, or read-only safety, which would be valuable absent annotations.

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 with the core functionality in the first, use cases in the second, and return type/related tools in the third. Front-loaded and concise with no wasted words.

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 7 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose and return type but fails to explain the required `brand` parameter, filtering options, or output structure. It also leaves ambiguity around 'publisher' vs 'advertiser' roles.

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, but it does not explain any of the seven parameters, including the required `brand`. Parameter names like `search` and `limit` are self-explanatory, but `brand` and `categories` are ambiguous without guidance.

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 ('affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on CJ Affiliate (advertiser)'), includes example user queries, and clarifies scope. It distinguishes from the sibling `affiliate_cj_list_programmes` with the '(advertiser)' qualifier.

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 when to use this tool with concrete user questions and notes natural pairings with `get_programme` and `list_transactions`. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the publisher-side alternative.

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