affiliate_partnerize-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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 indicates a read operation via 'Fetch' and mentions the return type, but omits critical behavior such as pagination (despite limit/cursor/offset params), default date ranges, rate limits, or any side effects. No statement confirms it is read-only beyond the verb, leaving the agent to guess operational details.

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?

Three tightly written sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality with metrics, the second gives concrete use cases, and the third specifies return type and companion tools. No redundancy, front-loaded with purpose, and 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, pagination behavior, or the fields inside ProgrammePerformanceRow. While it gives usage examples and companion tools, an agent would lack crucial details for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 only vaguely references 'by date' (to/from) and 'per-publisher' (publisherId) and the need to discover publisher ids via list_media_partners. It does not explain the meaning or usage of brand, programmeId, limit, cursor, or offset. The description adds minimal value beyond what the parameter names already imply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly defines the resource: per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Partnerize, listing the metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and granularity (by date). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the per-publisher rollup, and the example queries further clarify its exact purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool with example user queries ('how is each publisher performing...', 'show me the top-earning partners last month') and provides alternatives/companions: list_media_partners for publisher ids and list_transactions for transaction-level drill-down. This gives the agent clear selection and exclusion criteria.

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