affiliate_indoleads_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only discloses that it returns Click records and supports filtering. It does not mention pagination behavior, date format expectations, or auth requirements, which would be useful for an agent to know before calling. However, it does add some behavioral context beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose and return type.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, then gives concrete use cases, and ends with return type and companion tool. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has 6 parameters with no output schema and no annotations, so a complete description should cover filtering, pagination, and return structure. It covers the primary use case and filters but omits pagination semantics and details about what a Click record contains. It is adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps in parameter and return documentation.

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 explains programme filtering ('programme') and date filtering ('date') which map to programmeId and to/from, but it does not explain limit, cursor, or offset. Since four of six parameters are pagination-related and remain undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema 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 lists recent affiliate clicks on Indoleads with optional programme and date filters. It uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'affiliate clicks on Indoleads', distinguishing it from siblings like list_transactions and list_programmes.

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 use cases for traffic-side debugging with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?' or 'where is traffic going on Indoleads?'). It also names an alternative/complementary tool, list_transactions, for comparing clicks vs conversions.

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