affiliate_partnerize-advertiser_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool returns Click records, supports date/programme filtering, and is read-oriented ('List'). It lacks some behavioral details like pagination behavior or date format expectations, but provides meaningful context beyond the tool name for a listing operation.

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 sentences, all substantive and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance, then return type and pairing suggestion. No fluff or repetition — 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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to combine with another tool. It falls short on pagination details, date format expectations, and auth prerequisites, but overall provides a solid, actionable picture.

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 for 7 undocumented parameters. It adds filter semantics ('programme and date' maps to programmeId and from/to), which helps, but leaves brand, limit, cursor, and offset unexplained. The high-level filter hints are useful but not comprehensive for the full parameter set.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent affiliate clicks on Partnerize (Advertiser)') with explicit scope ('optionally filtered by programme and date'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many other list_clicks siblings by platform and advertiser orientation, and names the complementary list_transactions tool for cross-comparison.

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 usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going?'). It also names the related list_transactions tool for comparing clicks vs conversions, effectively telling the agent when this tool is appropriate.

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