affiliate_growsurf_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists programmes and returns an array of Programme records. It does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether this is a read-only operation, how the required 'brand' parameter filters results, or any pagination/rate-limit behavior. The omission of the required brand parameter's role is a significant transparency gap.

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 core purpose, followed by usage examples and related-tool guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler. It is concise and well structured for quick scanning by an 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides usage context and return type but omits any parameter semantics, particularly the required 'brand' field, and gives no details on filtering, pagination, or output envelope. The included related-tool references are helpful but do not compensate for these gaps.

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 provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters, including the required 'brand' parameter. It does not clarify what 'brand' refers to, how filters like 'status', 'categories', or 'search' behave, or what 'limit', 'cursor', and 'offset' control. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on GrowSurf (or which are available to join).' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('affiliate programmes on GrowSurf'), and distinguishes this tool from the many sibling list_programmes tools by naming the network. Example user queries further reinforce the intended purpose.

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 usage guidance with example queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on GrowSurf?') and suggests companion tools for drill-down (get_programme) and activity (list_transactions). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other networks, but the network-specific name and context make the appropriate use case clear.

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