affiliate_flipkart_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (array of Programme records) and that it includes both joined and available programmes, but lacks details on pagination, filtering behavior, or side effects, which are relevant given the cursor and limit 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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, example queries, and related tool recommendations. Front-loaded and concise with no redundancy.

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?

With 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It covers purpose and usage but leaves parameter behavior and response structure underspecified, which is critical for a tool with filter and pagination options.

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 does not mention any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The agent receives no guidance on how to use filters, pagination, or search, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 Flipkart Affiliate, with the specific scope of what the publisher has joined or can join. It distinguishes from siblings like get_programme (single record retrieval) and list_transactions (activity), 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?

The description provides explicit example queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Flipkart Affiliate?') and recommends pairing with get_programme and list_transactions, giving clear when-to-use guidance and indicating alternatives.

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