affiliate_firstpromoter_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool lists both joined and available programmes and returns an array of Programme records. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, required authentication, or whether the operation is read-only. This is some transparency but not exhaustive for a list tool with 7 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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence contributes value. It includes example queries and related-tool pairing without unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It explains the core purpose and related tools but omits crucial information about parameters, pagination, and return value structure. The agent would need to infer or guess how to populate fields like status, categories, and cursor.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the 7 parameters (brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The only hint is 'partner inventory', which does not clarify how to use the required 'brand' parameter or optional filters. This is 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on FirstPromoter', and distinguishes the scope ('or which are available to join'). It also includes concrete example user queries and mentions the tool pairs with get_programme and list_transactions, clearly distinguishing it from other list_programmes tools for different 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool with example user intents ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on FirstPromoter?') and mentions related tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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