affiliate_mrge_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type ('Returns an array of Programme records') and the inclusive scope ('joined ... or which are available to join'), but it does not mention pagination, auth requirements, default ordering, or filtering behavior. Some context is added, but significant gaps remain for a list operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage triggers, then return type and companion tools. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 list operation with 5 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and usage well but is incomplete on parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and return record structure. The pairing hints are useful, but an agent would still lack critical details about how to filter or paginate.

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 5 optional parameters (limit, cursor, search, status, categories) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no parameter explanations at all. The description does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation; an agent would have no guidance on how to use these fields.

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 states a specific action ('List affiliate programmes'), the resource ('affiliate programmes'), and the network scope ('on mrge'), with an additional parenthetical about availability. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the mrge network and pairs with related get_programme/list_transactions tools.

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 provides explicit user query examples ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on mrge?') and a general use case ('wants a partner inventory'). It also mentions natural pairings with get_programme and list_transactions, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other network list_programmes.

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