affiliate_flipkart_list_clicks

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey safety and behavioral traits itself. It states that it returns Click records and positions itself as a read-only debugging list operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the definition of 'recent'. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by targeted usage context and a sibling reference. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 schema-only parameters, the description covers the primary use case and return type ('Click records') but lacks parameter semantics for pagination, detailed output structure, and any auth/prerequisite context. It is adequate for high-level selection but not sufficient for fully-informed 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 6 parameters. It only mentions 'programme and date' (programmeId, from, to) and entirely omits limit, cursor, and offset. The meaning of date ranges (format, inclusivity) and pagination controls is left to the schema's bare names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'List recent affiliate clicks on Flipkart Affiliate, optionally filtered by programme and date' – a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_transactions and list_programmes tools. It also explicitly names complementary tool list_transactions, reinforcing its unique role in the affiliate ecosystem.

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 directs when to use: '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 names sibling list_transactions as a complementary tool for comparing clicks vs conversions, giving clear context and an alternative.

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