affiliate_eduzz_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns Click records and that filters are optional, but it omits pagination behavior, default date-range semantics, ordering, auth requirements, and rate-limit context.

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: purpose first, then use cases, then return type and sibling pairing. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably helpful but incomplete. It names Click records and the list_transactions pairing, but it does not explain pagination parameters, default recency window, or any return-field details, leaving operational gaps.

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 adds meaning by saying results are 'optionally filtered by programme and date,' which maps to programmeId and from/to, but it does not describe limit, cursor, offset, or date formats, leaving significant parameter ambiguity.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Eduzz.' It names the optional filters (programme and date) and distinguishes itself from transaction-focused siblings by explicitly pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs. conversions.

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 says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and provides concrete example questions, giving clear when-to-use context. It also mentions pairing with list_transactions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or exclude alternatives.

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