affiliate_impact_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of Programme records and that it lists both joined and available programs, adding some context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects—leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by example queries and return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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 the primary purpose, usage examples, return type, and relationships to sibling tools. However, it omits parameter semantics, pagination details, and any caveats about filtering or response shape. Given the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, these omissions leave the agent with moderate uncertainty about how to invoke the tool correctly for complex requests.

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?

The schema has 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The agent is left entirely without guidance on how to use these parameters, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 Impact (or which are available to join)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_programme and list_transactions by mentioning drill-down and activity use cases. Example user queries make 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example queries ('which merchants am I working with?') and mentions natural pairings with get_programme and list_transactions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with a direct alternative in the same way as a 'use X instead' formulation.

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