affiliate_daisycon_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 operation is a listing ('List recent...'), indicates optional filtering, and states the return type ('Returns Click records'). It does not detail pagination, auth, or side effects, but as a read-only list operation the core behavior is transparent. It could add more context on 'recent' or pagination, but the description goes beyond the basic schema.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: statement of function, usage examples, and return type/complementary tool. No redundant words or filler; front-loaded with the core action.

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 description covers the main purpose, typical use cases, return type, and relationship to list_transactions. Since there is no output schema or annotations, it would be beneficial to describe the Click record shape or pagination behavior, but the description is still sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool in the common traffic-debugging scenario.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that filtering is by 'programme and date', which maps to programmeId and from/to parameters. However, it does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or the format of date strings. This leaves three of six parameters without any semantic guidance, so the description only partially compensates.

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 verb and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Daisycon'. It also specifies optional filters ('by programme and date') and distinguishes from sibling list_transactions by noting 'Returns Click records; pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions.' This is a specific and unambiguous description.

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 use cases: 'traffic-side debugging — e.g. "are my links being clicked at all?" or "where is traffic going on Daisycon?"'. It also names an alternative/complementary tool: 'pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and distinguishes from related tools.

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