affiliate_impact-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('array of Programme records') and that it lists joined or available programmes. However, it omits details on whether the operation is read-only, required authentication, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The description adds some context but not rich behavioral insight.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, provides usage examples, then mentions returns and related tools. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 covers purpose and returns but leaves parameter semantics, pagination options (limit, cursor, offset), and filtering behavior (search, status, categories) entirely unexplained. The description is not entirely inadequate but leaves critical gaps for execution.

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 does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The required 'brand' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without any guidance on what values to provide. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb and resource: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Impact (advertiser)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting '(advertiser)', differentiating from affiliate_impact_list_programmes. It also provides example user queries, making the 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 with example queries like 'which merchants am I working with?' and states it pairs with get_programme and list_transactions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with the non-advertiser version, though the '(advertiser)' qualifier implies this.

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