affiliate_leaddyno_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns ProgrammePerformanceRow records and lists included metrics, and 'Fetch' implies a read operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, date parameter behavior, pagination, or any side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no structured annotation safety info.

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, each adding value: the first defines the scope and metrics, the second provides concrete usage examples, and the third explains the return type and complementary tools. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate heavily. It does mention the return type and relationships to sibling tools, but it omits parameter semantics, pagination, date handling, and the optionality of fields like programmeId and publisherId. This makes the tool only partially self-explanatory for an agent.

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 only minimal parameter hints: 'by date' alludes to from/to, and 'pair with list_media_partners to discover publisher ids' hints at publisherId. It does not explain brand, programmeId, limit, cursor, offset, or their defaults/relationships. With 8 parameters, this is insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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 a brand's programme at LeadDyno, naming specific metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and date scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'per-publisher' rollup and naming the LeadDyno network, and does not confuse with list_transactions or get_earnings_summary.

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 gives explicit when-to-use examples ('how is each publisher performing on LeadDyno?', 'show me the top-earning partners last month') and clarifies the tool is for per-publisher rollup. It also suggests pairing with list_media_partners for publisher IDs and list_transactions for drill-down, which provides clear alternatives and integration context.

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