affiliate_linkconnector_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals it's a read operation ('List'), specifies the output ('Returns Click records'), and provides context via the traffic-debugging use case. However, it omits important operational behaviors like pagination (cursor/offset/limit), date format expectations, or what 'recent' means in terms of a default time window.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case with examples, and output/complement. No filler or 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?

The description provides the essential purpose, use case, filter hints, and a relationship to list_transactions, which is helpful. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around pagination parameters (cursor, offset, limit) and the structure of Click records. For a moderately complex tool with six optional parameters, this is a meaningful omission.

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 adds meaning for 'programme and date' (mapping to programmeId, from, to), clarifying they are filter parameters. But it completely omits limit, cursor, and offset, leaving the agent without guidance on how to paginate or control the result size. This partial coverage earns a mid-range score.

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's function: 'List recent affiliate clicks on LinkConnector, optionally filtered by programme and date.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transactions and other network-specific list_clicks tools. The mention of 'recent' and filtering adds precision.

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 use cases ('traffic-side debugging', 'are my links being clicked at all?') and suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, which identifies an alternative/complement. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context effectively implies when list_transactions would be more appropriate.

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