affiliate_financeads_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action as listing, mentions optional filters, and states that it returns Click records, but it does not clearly disclose read-only semantics, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The phrase 'recent' is vague and not defined.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('List recent affiliate clicks...') and then adds practical context. 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide essential context. It covers the core purpose, key filters, and how it relates to list_transactions, but it omits details about pagination, date formats, and the full structure of a Click record. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 provides zero description coverage for the 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'filtered by programme and date,' giving meaning to programmeId and from/to, but does not explain limit, cursor, or offset. This partial clarification helps map some params but leaves pagination parameters unexplained.

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 'List recent affiliate clicks on financeAds' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from siblings by naming the network (financeAds) and providing example use cases. The mention of pairing with list_transactions further distinguishes its role.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and gives concrete questions like 'are my links being clicked at all?' It also points to a related tool ('pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions'), which provides an alternative/complementary usage.

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