affiliate_impact_list_clicks

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Click records and supports filtering by programme/date, but it does not explain pagination behavior (cursor/offset/limit), date format semantics, or what 'recent' means. This is a read-only operation, but the description omits some behavioral details that would help the agent set expectations.

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 exactly three sentences, each earning its place: function declaration, usage guidance, and return-type plus cross-reference. It front-loads the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states that Click records are returned and gives concrete debugging scenarios. However, it does not explain pagination controls (especially given cursor/offset/limit params) or the structure of Click records, so the agent is left with some uncertainty about how to iterate through results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that to/from and programmeId relate to date and programme filters, respectively, but it provides no explanation of limit, cursor, offset, or date formats. The added meaning is partial, leaving pragmatically important pagination semantics to parameter name inference.

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, with optional programme and date filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling transaction-focused tools by emphasizing traffic-side debugging and explicitly suggesting pairing with list_transactions.

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 use cases (e.g., 'are my links being clicked at all?') and names the alternative list_transactions for comparison. This gives the agent clear when-to-use guidance and a relevant complementary tool.

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