affiliate_levanta_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return type (array of Programme records) and scope (joined/available), but lacks explicit read-only confirmation, pagination behavior, or auth requirements. For a list operation, 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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core function, provide example queries, and mention related tools. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Covers usage scenarios and return type, but with 6 undocumented parameters and no annotations, it leaves gaps around pagination, filtering, and output details. It is minimally viable but incomplete for full agent autonomy.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain limit, cursor, offset, search, status, or categories, forcing the agent to infer meaning from names alone. The 'joined or available' phrase hints at status but is not explicit.

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 it lists affiliate programmes on Levanta, with a specific verb 'List' and resource. It also distinguishes between joined and available programmes and contrasts with get_programme and list_transactions siblings.

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?

Provides explicit example user queries and recommends pairing with get_programme and list_transactions, giving clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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