affiliate_commission-factory_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('array of Programme records'), but does not mention pagination behavior, default sorting, or the relationship between the 'joined' vs 'available to join' scope and the status parameter. This is not misleading but leaves notable 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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by usage examples and return/pairing info. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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?

The description covers the core what and when, and mentions the return format, which is useful given no output schema. However, it omits pagination details, filtering semantics, and the handling of the 'available to join' vs 'joined' distinction, leaving the tool partially incomplete for a complex listing operation.

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 six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The mention of 'joined' and 'available to join' hints at the status parameter but does not explicitly connect them, leaving parameter meanings underspecified.

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 affiliate programmes on Commission Factory for the publisher, using specific verbs ('List') and resources ('affiliate programmes'). It differentiates from siblings by specifying the publisher perspective and network name, and includes example user queries that reinforce its purpose.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the user asks...' with concrete example queries, and names complementary tools (get_programme, list_transactions) for drill-down and activity, making it clear when to choose this tool instead of alternatives.

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