affiliate_ehub_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'List recent affiliate clicks' and says 'Returns Click records', indicating a read-only operation and basic output. However, it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, default time ranges, rate limits, or pagination behavior (despite cursor/offset parameters in the schema).

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 a clear front-loaded statement of purpose. The traffic-side debugging examples add practical value and the pairing note with list_transactions is useful. It is concise and well-structured, though the examples could be trimmed slightly without loss of clarity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview: purpose, filters, use case, and a pairing recommendation. However, it is incomplete for a 6-parameter tool, lacking details on default date range behavior, pagination semantics, auth requirements, and output structure. The description is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps that an agent would need to resolve via experimentation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'programme and date' filters (mapping to programmeId and from/to), but falls short on limit, cursor, and offset—common pagination parameters that are left completely unexplained. The description adds some meaning but is insufficient for an agent to correctly use all parameters without external knowledge.

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 purpose: 'List recent affiliate clicks on eHUB', using a specific verb (list) and resource (affiliate clicks on eHUB). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like list_transactions by mentioning pairing for clicks vs conversions, and the 'eHUB' scope separates it from sibling list_clicks 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 explicitly provides context for when to use the tool: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete examples like 'are my links being clicked at all?' and 'where is traffic going on eHUB?'. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, offering a clear alternative use. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when other network-specific list_clicks should be used).

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