affiliate_coupang-partners_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 the tool returns Click records and supports optional programme/date filters. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, date range semantics, rate limits, or auth requirements, leaving gaps for a list operation.

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?

Three compact sentences: the first states action and filters, the second gives a concrete usage scenario, the third describes the return type and useful pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear purpose, use cases, and return type, but omits pagination parameters, date format details, and behavioral caveats. It's adequate for basic invocation but leaves meaningful gaps for advanced usage.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only hints at programme and date filtering. The six schema parameters (to, from, limit, cursor, offset, programmeId) are not individually explained; pagination tokens (cursor/offset) and date formats are left entirely undocumented. The names help but add limited semantic value.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Coupang Partners'. It also names optional filters (programme and date) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions and get_programme.

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 an explicit use case ('traffic-side debugging') and example questions, plus a complementary pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. It doesn't name exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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