affiliate_cj_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies read-only operation via 'List' and notes the return type ('Click records'). However, it does not mention auth requirements, default date ranges, pagination behavior, or any other limits—leaving key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 compact—two sentences total—and front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage guidance and a cross-reference to a related tool. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description covers purpose, usage, and return type. However, the 6-parameter schema with 0% coverage, plus the absence of an output schema, means the agent still lacks important details about filtering syntax, pagination, and result structure. The pairing suggestion helps but does not fill these gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'filtered by programme and date' but does not explicitly name or explain the parameters 'programmeId', 'from', 'to', or the pagination parameters 'limit', 'cursor', 'offset'. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter formats and behavior.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('recent affiliate clicks on CJ Affiliate') and immediately distinguishes itself from network-specific siblings by naming CJ. It also provides concrete use-case examples ('are my links being clicked at all?'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('traffic-side debugging') and gives example queries. It also references an alternative/complementary tool ('pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions'), clearly steering the agent on how to combine tools.

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