affiliate_everflow-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type ('array of Programme records') and the scope nuance ('or which are available to join'), which adds value. However, it does not mention read-only status, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a safe and effective invocation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes examples and related-tool references. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter semantics, pagination, or the structure of returned Programme records. The cross-references to get_programme and list_transactions help but do not compensate for missing invocation details.

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 adds no parameter explanations. The required 'brand' parameter is not described, nor are optional filters like status, categories, or search. An agent would have no guidance on what values to provide, making correct invocation guesswork.

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 Everflow (Advertiser) and provides concrete example user queries. It distinguishes from the non-advertiser sibling by naming the platform variant. However, the phrase 'publisher has joined' in an advertiser context introduces ambiguity, and the dual joined/available behavior could be stated more precisely.

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 gives explicit trigger queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Everflow (Advertiser)?') and explains how it pairs with get_programme and list_transactions for drill-down and activity. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the examples provide sufficient context for selection.

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