affiliate_everflow-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully states that the tool returns ProgrammePerformanceRow records and lists key metrics, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, date-range semantics, default limits, or authentication/scope expectations. This is partial transparency for a read-style tool.

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 dense but efficient: it leads with the action and metrics, gives concrete example queries, then mentions return type and related tools. 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong use-case orientation and return-type information but leaves important operational details (parameter formats, pagination, defaults) unspecified. It is adequate for selection but not fully complete for invocation confidence.

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 only partially compensates. It implies date range via 'by date' and publisher filtering via 'per-publisher', plus the pair-with-list_media_partners hint for publisher IDs. However, the meaning of brand vs. programmeId, date formats, and pagination parameters (limit, offset, cursor) remains undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Everflow (Advertiser) — clicks, conversions, gross sale, and commission, by date.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying both the network (Everflow Advertiser) and the per-publisher performance angle.

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?

Explicit usage triggers are provided via example user queries: 'Use this when the user asks "how is each publisher performing on Everflow (Advertiser)?", "show me the top-earning partners last month"'. It also names complementary tools, list_media_partners for publisher IDs and list_transactions for transaction-level drill-down, giving clear alternatives.

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