affiliate_commission-factory_list_clicks

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 that the tool returns Click records and supports filtering by programme/date, but it does not explain what 'recent' means, how pagination works via limit/cursor/offset, or any authentication requirements. Adequate but incomplete.

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 long, front-loaded with the action, then provides use cases and pairing guidance. Each sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and six undocumented parameters, the description is helpful but not complete. It covers the core purpose and usage well, but lacks details on pagination and parameter formats, which are essential for a tool with this much schema ambiguity.

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 only mentions 'filtered by programme and date', which maps roughly to programmeId and from/to, but leaves limit, cursor, and offset completely unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 recent affiliate clicks on Commission Factory' with optional programme and date filtering, providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing it as traffic-side debugging and explicitly contrasting with 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: for traffic-side debugging, with concrete example questions. It also names a complementary tool, 'list_transactions', and suggests pairing them to compare clicks vs conversions, giving clear usage context and an alternative.

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