affiliate_impact-advertiser_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type ('Click records') and implies a read-only list operation, but does not explicitly mention safety/rules, pagination behavior, or data freshness limits. It adds some context but leaves gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the function, the second provides use-case guidance, and the third covers return type and a pairing suggestion. Well-structured and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource.

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 gives useful context (traffic-side debugging, return type, pairing suggestion) but omits details about required parameters, pagination, and output shape. With no output schema and incomplete parameter coverage, the agent may face ambiguity when invoking the tool correctly.

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 mentions only 'programme and date' as filters, which loosely maps to programmeId and from/to. The required 'brand' parameter and pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) are not explained. Given the 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to adequately compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 lists recent affiliate clicks on Impact (advertiser), with optional programme and date filters. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the advertiser scope and Impact network, avoiding confusion with other 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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete examples like 'are my links being clicked at all?'. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, giving clear guidance on when and how to use the tool alongside alternatives.

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