affiliate_growsurf_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records), but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. The verb 'Fetch' implies a safe read, but without explicit statement, it's only adequate, not thorough.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage triggers, then returns/complementary tools. Every sentence adds value and no information is repeated from the schema.

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?

The description covers the essential context: what it returns, when to use it, and how to combine it with other tools. The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, and while the description handles the core intent well, it leaves parameter format details (e.g., date formats, pagination parameters) unspecified. This is a minor gap that prevents a perfect score.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explicitly references 'brand' (brand's programme) and 'by date' (implying from/to), and publisher IDs via 'per-publisher' and pairing with list_media_partners. However, it does not explain optional parameters like limit, cursor, offset, programmeId, or publisherId, leaving those undefined in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb 'Fetch per-publisher performance' and names both the resource (programme at GrowSurf) and the metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) grouped by date. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions, get_earnings_summary, and other networks' get_programme_performance tools.

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 explicitly provides trigger phrases ('how is each publisher performing on GrowSurf?', 'show me the top-earning partners last month') and specifies when to use it ('wants the per-publisher rollup'). It also names complementary tools (list_media_partners for publisher IDs, list_transactions for drill-down), effectively guiding when not to use this tool alone.

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