affiliate_effiliation_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read-only list operation, supports optional filters, and returns Click records. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, default date ranges, or rate limits. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 concise sentences: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns paired with a related tool. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the core use case and return type but leaves gaps around pagination, date formatting, and exact parameter semantics. It's reasonably complete for the stated debugging purpose but not fully self-sufficient.

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 names two filter dimensions ('programme and date') which map to programmeId and from/to, but it doesn't explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) or their types/constraints. The description adds some value but leaves most parameters unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('affiliate clicks on Effiliation'), and mentions filtering by programme/date. It distinguishes itself from other network-specific list_clicks tools by explicitly naming Effiliation and suggesting pairing with list_transactions.

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?

It clearly positions the tool for traffic-side debugging with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going on Effiliation?'). It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for clicks-vs-conversions analysis, providing a complementary alternative. It lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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