affiliate_involve-asia_list_clicks

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 that the tool returns 'Click records' and describes filtering behavior, but does not mention pagination behavior, default date ranges, or authentication requirements. 'Recent' is vague and could leave the agent uncertain about the exact time window.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear declarative sentence, a usage guideline, and a return/related-tool clause. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 list operation with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, usage context, return type, and a related tool. It is adequately complete for a simple list, though it could ideally mention pagination defaults or the structure of Click records. The lack of an output schema raises the bar slightly, but the description still meets most essential needs.

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 coverage is 0% with 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for programmeId and date filtering ('filtered by programme and date'), but does not explain limit, cursor, offset, or their relationships. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, so the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for pagination parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Involve Asia', and notes optional filters by programme and date. This clearly distinguishes it from transaction tools and other network-specific click tools by naming the network and the data type.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, providing clear alternative/complement context.

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