affiliate_daisycon-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records) and the data shape (per-publisher metrics by date), implying a read-only fetch. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default date ranges, or authentication requirements explicitly.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main function and metrics, then adding usage examples 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?

Given no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the core purpose, return type, and relations to sibling tools, but lacks details on pagination and exact parameter syntax. It is nonetheless a substantial overview for a moderately complex tool, though not fully comprehensive.

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% for parameters, so the description compensates by clarifying the date context (by date), publisher grouping (per-publisher), and the programme/brand relationship. It does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or validate the format of brand, programmeId, or publisherId, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 fetches per-publisher performance for a brand's programme at Daisycon, listing specific metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and the date dimension. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions or list_media_partners.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'when the user asks...' with example queries, and gives alternatives by saying to pair with list_media_partners for publisher IDs and list_transactions for transaction-level drill-down. This clearly guides selection among sibling tools.

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