affiliate_howl_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it returns Click records and mentions optional filters, but does not explain pagination behavior (limit/cursor/offset), default time ranges, or auth requirements. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but could be more explicit.

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, front-loaded with the main action, followed by use case and output/pairing guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 purpose, filters, return type, and a pairing suggestion. However, it lacks details on pagination parameters and the shape of Click records (since no output schema exists). It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some gaps in a fully self-contained description.

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 adds meaning for programme and date filters, but does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or how they interact. Five of six parameters remain undocumented, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 action: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Howl' with optional filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming Howl and provides a concrete use case ('traffic-side debugging').

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 says when to use it ('Use this for traffic-side debugging') with example questions, and suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, giving clear context relative to a related tool.

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