affiliate_cj_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the output type (array of Programme records) and the scope (joined or available), but it does not disclose pagination behavior (despite cursor/limit/offset parameters), filtering options, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The phrase 'or which are available to join' is slightly ambiguous about whether both categories are returned by default or selectable via 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 compact yet information-dense, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide usage context, output type, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it provides strong usage context and return type, it fails to explain parameter semantics, pagination, or filtering behavior. The agent selecting and invoking this tool would need additional information to construct a well-formed request beyond the simplest call.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The agent receives no guidance on how these parameters affect the query or what valid values are expected. With the schema providing no descriptions and the description adding none, this is a critical gap 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 clearly states the tool lists affiliate programmes on CJ Affiliate, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programmes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming CJ Affiliate and noting the scope includes both joined and available programmes. It also differentiates from related tools by suggesting pairings with get_programme and list_transactions.

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 gives explicit usage triggers with example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on CJ Affiliate?') and states 'Use this when...'. It also provides guidance on alternatives by mentioning that it pairs with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, implying when those tools would be used instead.

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