affiliate_commission-factory-adv_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rollup nature, the metrics, and the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow), which is useful context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, parameter interactions (e.g., whether publisherId is required/filters, programmeId usage), or any auth requirements. For a read-only reporting tool, this is moderate but not exhaustive transparency.

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 well-structured: a lead action sentence with metrics, followed by concrete use-case examples, and a closing sentence on return type and related tools. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the length is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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 description adequately covers the core purpose, usage, and return type, but leaves important operational details undocumented: how programmeId or publisherId filters results, pagination via cursor/offset/limit, date range semantics, and the exact fields in ProgrammePerformanceRow. Given the lack of an output schema and the 8 parameters, these gaps prevent full operational clarity.

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 for the 8 parameters. It only indirectly hints at a few: 'brand' is the required parameter, 'by date' implies from/to, and 'per-publisher' implies publisherId. It does not explain programmeId, limit, cursor, offset, or the format of from/to. This is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 fetches per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Commission Factory (advertiser), listing the specific metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and the date dimension. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the network, advertiser perspective, and the rollup nature (per-publisher).

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 use cases: 'how is each publisher performing on Commission Factory?', 'show me the top-earning partners last month', and 'wants the per-publisher rollup'. It also names alternatives: list_media_partners for discovering publisher ids and list_transactions for transaction-level drill-down, making the choice between tools clear.

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