affiliate_levanta_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns Click records'), the 'recent' scope, and filtering options. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination behavior, or auth requirements. For a non-destructive list operation, this is reasonably transparent but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage context, return type, and a sibling pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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's moderate complexity (6 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, return type, and a relationship to list_transactions. It lacks explicit parameter formats (e.g., date format) and pagination details, but an agent can likely infer these from the parameter names and the description's mention of filtering. This is close to complete but has minor gaps.

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 compensate. It explains the programme and date filters ('optionally filtered by programme and date'), which maps to programmeId and from/to, but leaves limit, cursor, and offset unexplained. Since pagination parameters are common and self-explanatory, the partial compensation is adequate but not complete.

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 'List recent affiliate clicks on Levanta, optionally filtered by programme and date' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning Levanta and pairing with list_transactions, making its role 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 explicitly says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions and advises pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a complementary alternative, meeting the bar for strong usage guidelines.

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