affiliate_lomadee_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context (returns Click records, 'recent' implied time scoping, traffic-side debugging) but does not mention pagination behavior (cursor/offset), default limits, date formats, or any auth requirements. The lack of annotation coverage makes this a moderate score.

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 core action and optional filters, followed by use-case examples and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence earns its place with 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 the core purpose, gives usage examples, states return type, and suggests a sibling tool. However, it omits pagination parameters (cursor/offset/limit) and does not disclose behavioral details like data freshness windows or sorting. For a tool with 6 params and no annotations, this leaves notable gaps for an agent to use it correctly in complex scenarios.

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 maps 'programme' to programmeId and 'date' to from/to, giving meaning to those three parameters. However, limit, cursor, and offset are entirely unexplained, leaving pagination semantics opaque. With 6 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('affiliate clicks on Lomadee'), and optional filters ('programme and date'). It also distinguishes this from transaction tools by framing it as 'traffic-side debugging' and explicitly pairing it with 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?

Provides concrete use cases ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going?') and names the alternative tool (list_transactions) for comparing clicks vs conversions. This gives the agent explicit guidance on when to select this tool over siblings.

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