affiliate_commission-factory-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions the return type ('Returns an array of Programme records') and the scope of data (joined or available to join), which is useful. Yet it does not disclose pagination behavior, credentials required, rate limits, or any potential side effects, which are relevant for a tool with pagination parameters (cursor, offset).

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main action, the second gives usage triggers, and the third mentions return type and companion tools. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential purpose, usage context, and return type, but omits important invocation details such as parameter meanings and pagination behavior. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for confident invocation without additional inference.

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 explain any of the 7 parameters (brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema property names imply, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Commission Factory (advertiser) (or which are available to join)' with a specific verb and resource. It includes example user queries, making the purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'affiliate_commission-factory_list_programmes' tool, and the phrase 'publisher has joined' is slightly confusing given the 'advertiser' context.

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 provides explicit trigger phrases ('when the user asks...') and names companion tools ('pairs naturally with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity'). However, it does not clearly state when NOT to use this tool versus the non-advertiser variant, leaving some ambiguity about alternative selection.

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