affiliate_netrefer_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'List' and notes that it returns Click records. However, it omits details on pagination behavior, the definition of 'recent', and any rate limits or auth requirements. These are useful behavioral traits not disclosed.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose. The example debugging questions and the pairing with list_transactions add meaningful context without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, use case, and return type. However, it lacks details on parameter formats, pagination expectations, and exact response structure, which are important for correct invocation. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 mentions 'optionally filtered by programme and date', which hints at programmeId and from/to parameters, but it does not explain limit, cursor, or offset. With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, this partial coverage leaves significant ambiguity for pagination and other controls.

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 recent affiliate clicks on NetRefer, with optional filters by programme and date. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the resource (clicks) and network (NetRefer), and explicitly mentions returning Click records, setting it apart from transaction-focused 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 clear usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete examples like 'are my links being clicked at all?' It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, which guides complementary use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like list_transactions as a replacement.

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