affiliate_coupang-partners_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context (lists joined/available programmes, returns an array of Programme records) but does not disclose pagination behavior, authorization requirements, or potential side effects. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage examples, then return type and related tools. Every sentence adds value 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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to cover more ground. It covers usage triggers and related tools well, but lacks parameter guidance and details about the returned Programme records' structure or pagination behavior. It is functional but incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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% (no descriptions in the input schema), so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) beyond their names and types in the schema. No guidance on how to use status or categories, which may have specific allowed values.

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 Coupang Partners, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programmes on Coupang Partners'). It also provides example user queries, distinguishing it from the many other network-specific list_programmes tools.

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 tells when to use this tool (e.g., 'which merchants am I working with?') and pairs it with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, implicitly guiding when not to use it. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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