affiliate_firstpromoter_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return type ('Returns Click records') and confirms it is a list operation, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default date ranges, or authentication requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the main action, the usage context with examples, and the return type with a pairing suggestion. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no 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?

Despite the strong usage guidance, the description is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It omits the only required parameter (brand), does not explain parameter semantics for cursor/offset/limit, and only vaguely describes return data as 'Click records'. This would likely leave the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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% for 7 parameters. The description merely states 'optionally filtered by programme and date' without mapping to specific parameter names (e.g., programmeId, from, to). It also fails to mention the required 'brand' parameter or explain the purpose of cursor, offset, and limit, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.

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 'List recent affiliate clicks on FirstPromoter' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions optional filters for programme and date. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_transactions by explicitly referencing 'clicks vs conversions', making its 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?

It provides explicit usage direction: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions like 'are my links being clicked at all?' and 'where is traffic going?'. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for comparison, which serves as a clear alternative.

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