affiliate_commission-factory-advertiser_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it 'Returns Click records' and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain pagination behavior, data freshness ('recent' is vague), or authentication requirements. It adds some context about filtering but lacks deeper disclosure of what happens or how data is scoped.

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 with the action and filters in the first sentence, usage context in the second, and return type plus companion tool in the third. Every sentence provides value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is relatively short. It covers purpose, use case, and return type, but omits the required 'brand' parameter and does not explain pagination or Click record fields, leaving the agent to guess. It is adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'programme' and 'date' (programmeId and from/to), but does not mention the required 'brand' parameter or the pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset). This partial guidance helps but leaves key parameters undocumented.

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 'recent affiliate clicks on Commission Factory (advertiser)' with optional filters, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. The '(advertiser)' qualifier helps distinguish it from the publisher-side tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and gives concrete example questions, which clearly defines when to use it. Additionally, it explicitly recommends pairing with 'list_transactions', naming a specific sibling tool for comparison.

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