affiliate_linkconnector_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 the tool returns an array of Programme records and clarifies the joined/available scope. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or authentication requirements, which would be useful for full 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, all informative and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage triggers, and return/companion tools. No fluff or repetition.

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 covers purpose, usage, and return type, which is mostly complete for a list tool. However, with no output schema and 6 parameters, there is no detail on Programme record fields or parameter constraints, and the ambiguous 'or which are available to join' leaves room for interpretation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, there are no details about valid values, formats, or how they behave, leaving 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 clearly states it lists affiliate programmes on LinkConnector and defines the scope as programmes the publisher has joined or are available to join. The action and resource are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like get_programme and list_transactions.

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 usage triggers are provided via example questions such as 'which merchants am I working with?' and 'what programmes do I have on LinkConnector?'. It also suggests complementary tools for drill-down (get_programme) and activity (list_transactions), giving clear guidance on when to use each.

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