affiliate_kwanko-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data returned (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission, by date) and the record type (ProgrammePerformanceRow), but does not detail authorization requirements, pagination behavior, or default date ranges. It is not misleading, but could be richer about output shape and edge cases.

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 efficient and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and metrics, second sentence provides usage triggers, third sentence mentions return type and complementary tools. No filler or repeated schema information.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to sibling tools. It lacks explicit details on pagination, date range defaults, and required vs optional parameters beyond the schema, but is otherwise complete for selection and invocation.

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 add meaning to parameters. It does so implicitly by mentioning 'by date' (from/to), 'per-publisher' (publisherId), and 'brand's programme' (brand, programmeId), plus suggests list_media_partners for publisher IDs. However, it does not explain pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) or date format, which are left to the schema names alone.

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 fetches per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Kwanko (advertiser), listing specific metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and grouping by date. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_transactions and list_media_partners, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly provides example user queries that indicate when to use this tool ('how is each publisher performing', 'show me the top-earning partners last month') and suggests alternatives for related tasks (list_media_partners for publisher IDs, list_transactions for drill-down). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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