affiliate_clickbank_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. It discloses the return type ('an array of Programme records') and the subtle 'joined or available' behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, read-only nature, or filtering semantics, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 primary purpose, followed by usage examples and return/pairing info. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only documentation. It covers purpose and return type but leaves the six parameters, error handling, pagination, and the joined-vs-available ambiguity unexplained. A more complete description would detail parameter behavior and clarify the listing scope.

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 input schema has six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. This is a critical gap: an agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters for filtering or pagination beyond their names.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on ClickBank'), distinguishing it from the many sibling list_programmes tools. However, the parenthetical '(or which are available to join)' introduces ambiguity about whether the tool returns joined programmes only or also available ones, preventing a perfect score.

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 explicit example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?') and a general use case ('wants a partner inventory'), guiding when to invoke the tool. It also names complementary siblings (get_programme, list_transactions), but does not explicitly state when not to use it, e.g., for non-ClickBank networks.

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