affiliate_kwanko-advertiser_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the return type (array of Programme records) and scopes to joined/available programmes, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, read-only guarantees, or pagination behavior. Since listing is implicitly read-only, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, usage cues, and related tools without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 purpose, usage, return type, and related tools, which is reasonable for a list operation. However, with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, it omits parameter behavior, pagination, and any edge-case context. It is complete for basic selection but lacks depth for a complex tool.

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% and the description provides no parameter explanations. Parameter names like limit, cursor, status, and categories are somewhat self-explanatory, but the required 'brand' parameter is undefined and no parameter semantics are added beyond the raw schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 affiliate programmes for the publisher on Kwanko (advertiser), including those joined or available to join. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it pairs with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Kwanko (advertiser)?') and identifies related tools for drill-down and activity. However, it does not clarify the difference between this tool and the sibling affiliate_kwanko_list_programmes (non-advertiser variant), which is a minor gap.

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