affiliate_indoleads_list_programmes

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

The description reveals a key behavioral nuance—that it includes programmes 'available to join' in addition to those joined—and states the return type as an array. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any side effects, which is notable given there are no annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage triggers, and return/related tools. No filler; each sentence serves a distinct function, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 competently covers selection context and return type, but it omits parameter semantics, pagination details, and any behavioral caveats. With 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the agent lacks sufficient operational detail for correct invocation beyond the simplest calls.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of `limit`, `cursor`, `search`, `status`, or `categories`. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource ('List affiliate programmes'), specifies the platform ('Indoleads'), and clarifies scope: 'the publisher has joined' or are 'available to join'. This distinguishes it from the many sibling list_programmes tools for other networks, even without naming alternatives.

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 user query examples ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Indoleads?') and mentions related tools for drill-down and activity, giving clear context for when to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion, unlike the gold-standard get_calls example.

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