affiliate_ebay_list_clicks

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool 'Returns Click records' and mentions optional filters, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, date format expectations, or whether the operation requires specific authentication. This leaves some ambiguity for a list tool with multiple parameters.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, provides concrete use-case examples, and ends with a useful pairing suggestion. Every sentence contributes actionable information, making it an exemplar of concise writing.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough high-level context for basic selection but lacks details on parameter formats, default date ranges, pagination semantics, or return field structure. It is sufficient for a straightforward list tool but not fully complete for an agent needing precise invocation details.

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%, and the description only loosely references 'filtered by programme and date', which maps to programmeId, from, and to. The pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) and other options are not mentioned or contextualized, so the agent receives minimal guidance beyond the raw schema names.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on eBay Partner Network'. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'traffic-side debugging' and the optional filters by programme and date, which separates it from list_transactions and other network-specific tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete examples like 'are my links being clicked at all?'. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, effectively guiding the agent on when to prefer this tool over transaction-oriented alternatives.

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