affiliate_effiliation_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral info: it returns an array of Programme records and covers both joined and available programmes. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or how filters affect results, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second gives trigger phrases, and the third describes the return type and related tools. No filler 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?

The description covers the primary purpose, return shape, and common use cases, making it minimally viable. But with no output schema and 6 undocumented parameters, the lack of guidance on pagination and filtering (search, status, categories) makes it incomplete for a complex invocation.

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). The agent gets zero guidance beyond parameter names, so this dimension is nearly absent.

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 Effiliation, specifying both joined and available-to-join scope. It distinguishes itself from the many other network-specific list_programmes tools by naming Effiliation and describing the exact action.

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?

Provides concrete example user queries and suggests pairing with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative network options.

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