affiliate_lomadee_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the scope (joined vs. available programmes) and return type (array of Programme records), but omits behavioral details such as pagination, authentication requirements, or filtering semantics.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage examples and return/companion tool context. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it could integrate parameter guidance.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential details on pagination, filtering, and Programme record structure. It provides high-level purpose and sibling hints but is insufficient for correct invocation in richer 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?

The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. limit, cursor, offset, search, status, and categories remain unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 lists affiliate programmes on Lomadee, including both joined and available ones. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_programme (drill-down) and list_transactions (activity).

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 trigger questions and use cases (e.g., 'which merchants am I working with?', 'partner inventory'). It also names complementary tools, giving the agent clear alternatives for drill-down and activity-related queries.

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