affiliate_eduzz_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of Programme records and mentions the joined/available scope. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether both joined and available programmes are returned together, and gives no details on pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or authorization requirements.

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, each earning its place: the purpose, concrete trigger examples, and related tools. It is front-loaded and free of fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter details entirely and leaves the joined/available list behavior ambiguous, which is problematic for a tool with cursor/offset pagination and status/category filters.

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 does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about valid values, formats, or how filters combine, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 Eduzz, scoped to the publisher's joined or available programmes. It includes specific example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?') that distinguish it from the many sibling list_programmes tools for other networks.

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 trigger phrases and states when to use the tool for partner inventory. It also names complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), acting as alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for other networks), relying on the Eduzz scoping to imply this.

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