affiliate_growsurf_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'List' and states it 'Returns Click records', which is useful. However, it does not disclose details about pagination, authentication requirements, or the precise meaning of 'recent' (e.g., default time window), leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 efficiently written in two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is relatively complete: it covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and the return type. However, it omits details on the structure of Click records, default date ranges, and the required brand parameter, leaving some context-dependent gaps that could hinder correct invocation in edge cases.

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. It partially does by mentioning filtering by 'programme and date', which maps to programmeId, from, and to. However, it does not explain the required 'brand' parameter or the pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset), leaving significant semantic gaps for an agent to infer.

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's function: 'List recent affiliate clicks on GrowSurf' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming GrowSurf and the ability to filter by programme and date, making it easy to differentiate from other network-specific list_clicks 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions like 'are my links being clicked at all?' and 'where is traffic going on GrowSurf?'. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, clearly indicating this tool is for clicks and not conversions, and naming a specific alternative.

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