affiliate_everflow-advertiser_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns Click records and supports optional filtering by programme and date, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is moderate transparency but incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then provide use cases, output type, and a pairing recommendation. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant content.

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 7 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention the required 'brand' parameter, pagination controls, output record structure, or error scenarios, making it difficult for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context.

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 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'programme and date' filtering, ignoring required 'brand' and pagination params like 'limit', 'cursor', and 'offset'. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to properly construct calls.

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 function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent affiliate clicks on Everflow (Advertiser)'), and provides concrete use case examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'affiliate_everflow_list_clicks', relying on the name suffix 'advertiser' rather than explaining the distinction.

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 says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and gives example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?'), which provides clear usage context. It also recommends pairing with 'list_transactions' to compare clicks vs conversions, but does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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