affiliate_daisycon-advertiser_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states 'Returns Click records' and the 'list' verb implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, date range semantics, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is an adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and a cross-reference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague 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?

With 7 parameters, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the required 'brand' parameter or pagination-related parameters (limit, cursor, offset), and only vaguely mentions date/programme filtering. The description is not sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke all aspects of the tool.

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 only vaguely mentions 'filtered by programme and date.' It fails to explain the meaning or purpose of brand (which is required), limit, cursor, offset, or how the date parameters map. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 recent affiliate clicks on Daisycon (advertiser), with optional filters for programme and date. It distinguishes itself from the publisher-side sibling by explicitly identifying the advertiser context.

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 directs use for traffic-side debugging with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going?'). It also suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, offering an alternative and complement.

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