affiliate_daisycon_list_programmes

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 tool returns an array of Programme records and that it lists joined or available programmes. However, it does not specify pagination behavior, auth requirements, or the exact meaning of 'available to join', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentences and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage triggers, and return type/pairing with related tools. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It states the return type but does not explain Programme record fields, pagination, default filtering behavior, or the meaning of 'available to join'. The tool is simple but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The description does not explain any of these parameters or how to use them to filter results. The only vague hint is 'joined (or which are available to join)', which could relate to a status filter but is not explicitly linked to any parameter.

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, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_programmes tools by naming the network (Daisycon) and specifies the publisher's perspective (joined or available to join). This is more specific than a generic list tool.

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 gives explicit example user questions ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Daisycon?') and states it is used for partner inventory. It also mentions pairing with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, which implies alternatives, though it does not directly say 'use X instead' or when not to use this tool.

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