affiliate_everflow_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful context by noting the result is 'an array of Programme records' and clarifies the two possible states (joined vs. available to join). However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or how filtering via parameters affects results, which is a notable gap for a tool with six parameters.

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 primary action, followed by usage examples and return type/complementary tools. Every sentence provides value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the core purpose and usage are clear, the description omits essential context for a tool with six optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how parameters like status, categories, or search behave, nor does it describe pagination, even though cursor/offset/limit exist. The agent would be unable to reliably construct complex queries or understand the expected data shape beyond 'array of Programme records.'

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, and the description provides no explanation for any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). It does not mention what values are accepted or how these parameters affect the listing. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess parameter meaning.

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: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Everflow (or which are available to join).' This clearly scopes the operation to Everflow and the publisher's relationship, distinguishing it from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks. It also gives concrete example queries, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use: 'Use this when the user asks "which merchants am I working with?", "what programmes do I have on Everflow?", or wants a partner inventory.' It also names complementary tools (get_programme, list_transactions) to guide follow-up actions, but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., other networks) or alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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