affiliate_daisycon-advertiser_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It adds useful context such as 'or which are available to join' and states the return type ('array of Programme records'), but it does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or clarify the ambiguous advertiser/publisher semantics. This is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the primary action. The phrase 'publisher has joined on Daisycon (advertiser)' is awkward and slightly confusing, but the overall structure is efficient and to the point.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide more context to be usable. It gives useful user-intent examples and mentions return shape, but lacks parameter definitions, pagination details, and fails to resolve the advertiser/publisher ambiguity, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 offers no explanation for any of the 7 parameters, including the required 'brand' parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving the agent guessing how to populate parameters correctly.

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 Daisycon from an advertiser perspective, with example queries ('which merchants am I working with?'). However, the phrase 'the publisher has joined' creates ambiguity about whether this is for an advertiser account viewing publisher memberships or a publisher listing programmes, which muddies the resource scope.

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 explicitly provides user-query examples ('which merchants am I working with?') and mentions complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the advertiser qualifier in the name implies distinction from the publisher-side daisycon_list_programmes.

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