affiliate_ehub_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 the return type ('Returns an array of Programme records') and includes the behavior of listing 'available to join' programmes. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, pagination behavior, or potential side effects. This is a moderate level of disclosure, leaving important behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then provides usage triggers, and ends with output and related tools. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns, which is adequate for a simple list operation. However, given the complexity of six parameters with no documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for advanced usage. It lacks details on pagination, filtering, and the structure of 'Programme records', leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in nuanced scenarios.

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 contains six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) with zero descriptions (schema description coverage 0%). The description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as how to paginate, format filters, or what values 'status' and 'categories' accept. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but without explicit guidance, an agent cannot reliably construct correct queries. The description adds no parameter value, thus failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on eHUB (or which are available to join).' It identifies a specific verb (list), a resource (affiliate programmes on eHUB), and the scope (joined or available). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by network (eHUB) and clarifies the primary function.

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 usage context: 'Use this when the user asks "which merchants am I working with?", "what programmes do I have on eHUB?", or wants a partner inventory.' It also suggests complementary tools ('pairs naturally with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity'). However, it does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly contrast it with alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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