affiliate_netrefer_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of Programme records and that results may include programmes the publisher joined OR that are available to join. However, it does not mention pagination behavior despite having limit/cursor/offset params, nor does it note auth requirements or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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, three sentences long, front-loaded with the action ('List affiliate programmes'), followed by concrete usage examples and related tools. Every sentence earns its place, with no 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage examples, return type, and related tools. It does not explain pagination or parameter formats, but it provides a solid foundation for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The only hint is 'available to join' which may relate to status, but no explicit param meaning is provided. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little value to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 NetRefer, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programmes the publisher has joined or which are available to join'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying NetRefer and by naming companion tools (get_programme, list_transactions), making its function unambiguous.

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 example queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on NetRefer?') and explicitly names related tools for drill-down (get_programme) and activity (list_transactions). This gives clear context for when to use this tool and how it fits with alternatives.

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