affiliate_offer18_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Returns Click records' and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose pagination behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. The lack of any mention of potential side effects or constraints leaves some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides additional value (use cases, return type, pairing advice). No redundant or filler content.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and use cases well but omits parameter semantics and pagination behavior. The reference to 'recent' clicks and pairing with list_transactions provides partial context, but the description is not sufficiently complete for an agent to fully understand all invocation nuances.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'programme and date' filters (mapping to programmeId and from/to), while limit, cursor, and offset are completely unexplained. Date format is also unspecified, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 Offer18, optionally filtered by programme and date. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific network (Offer18) and mentions pairing with list_transactions for comparison, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly guides when to use the tool: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions, and suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. This gives clear context and a complementary alternative.

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