affiliate_offer18_list_programmes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions that the tool returns 'an array of Programme records' and covers joined/available programmes, but does not explain pagination, authentication needs, or how 'available to join' is determined. This is some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences are compact and front-loaded, covering purpose, usage triggers, and return/companion info without redundancy. Each sentence earns its place, making it an appropriately sized description.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description omits parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and authentication context (notably a sibling verify_auth tool exists). While the purpose is clear, the description is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and six parameters, the description needed to explain parameter meanings but does not. It only gives the tool's purpose and never mentions limit, cursor, offset, search, status, or categories. The schema alone provides names/types but no semantics, so the description adds no parameter value.

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 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Offer18 (or which are available to join)', providing a specific verb and resource scope. It includes example user queries that clarify intent, and the mention of 'Offer18' distinguishes it from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Offer18?', 'wants a partner inventory') and identifies companion tools (get_programme, list_transactions). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the network-specific scope serves as implicit guidance.

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