affiliate_howl_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the return type ('Returns an array of Programme records') and the dual scope (joined or available to join), but does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, authentication requirements, or how to control the joined vs. available distinction—leaving gaps the agent must infer.

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, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage examples, and tool pairing. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 6 optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, pagination details, and an explanation of how filters like status and categories affect results. The return type is noted, but the tool's full behavior is not covered well enough for reliable invocation.

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 for any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not mention a single parameter, forcing the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Howl (or which are available to join)', using a specific verb and resource with the Howl network explicitly named. It distinguishes from sibling list_programmes by network and provides concrete example user queries, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user asks...' followed by three example queries. It also explains natural tool pairings ('pairs naturally with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity'), which helps the agent select complementary tools.

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