affiliate_leaddyno_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that the tool 'Returns Click records' and implies a read-only operation via 'List', but it omits behavioral details such as pagination behavior ('cursor', 'offset'), date range interpretation, or any rate limits. The 'recent' timeframe is vaguely defined, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage examples and return type. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose — no fluff or repetition. It is concise yet informative.

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 simple list tool, the description covers purpose, filtering options, return type, and use cases. However, with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, it leaves out essential context like pagination parameters and exact date format semantics. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for complex queries involving 'cursor'/'offset' or full parameter understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It mentions 'optionally filtered by programme and date', which maps to 'programmeId' and 'from'/'to', but the required 'brand' parameter is left unexplained, and 'limit', 'cursor', and 'offset' are not mentioned at all. The description provides minimal parameter insight and does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on LeadDyno', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_transactions and other networks' list_clicks. It also mentions optional filtering by programme and date, which further pinpoints the tool's scope.

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 the tool: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions. It also provides an alternative/complementary tool: 'pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions', giving clear usage context and a named sibling for differentiation.

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