affiliate_leaddyno_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 discloses that both joined and available programmes are included and that an array of Programme records is returned, but it does not cover pagination, rate limits, auth, or filter meaning.

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?

Three sentences: main action, example intents, and output/complement tools. Front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Although purpose and return type are clear, the seven-parameter schema remains unexplained and there is no output schema. For a tool with 7 params at 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete for selecting and invoking correctly.

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 descriptions are 0% covered, and the description adds no parameter explanations. Required 'brand' and optional filters (status, search, categories, pagination) remain undefined, forcing the agent to guess.

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 states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('affiliate programmes on LeadDyno'), and scope ('joined or available to join'). It distinguishes from sibling network tools by naming LeadDyno and from other LeadDyno tools by listing programmes specifically.

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?

Explicit use-case examples are provided ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on LeadDyno?'). It also suggests complementary tools (get_programme, list_transactions) for drill-down and activity, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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