affiliate_financeads_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (array of Programme records) and the dual scope (joined or available), but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any default filtering/sorting. Useful but incomplete for a list 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: main action, usage triggers, and return value/related tools. No redundant phrasing, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 a tool with 6 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It covers purpose and usage well but omits parameter meanings and behavioral details (pagination, status values), making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 provides no guidance on the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The agent cannot infer how to filter or paginate from the description, leaving a significant gap.

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 financeAds, specifying scope ('joined' or 'available to join'). It provides concrete example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?'), distinguishing it from similar list_programmes tools for other networks.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use it via example user phrasings and 'wants a partner inventory'. It also suggests paired tools (get_programme, list_transactions) for related tasks, which guides selection against alternatives.

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