affiliate_partnerize_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by stating it 'Returns Click records' and is 'optionally filtered by programme and date', implying a read-only listing operation. However, it does not disclose whether authentication with Partnerize is required, nor does it mention pagination behavior (cursor/offset/limit), which are visible in the schema.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and filters; the second provides use cases and a complementary tool. 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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear high-level purpose and use case but omits details about pagination semantics, default behaviors, and the structure of Click records. While not critically underspecified, the agent would need to infer several invocation details from parameter names and context.

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 clarifies that programme and date filters exist, which maps to programmeId and from/to, but it does not explain the pagination controls (limit, cursor, offset) or the exact meaning of the date range parameters. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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 opens with 'List recent affiliate clicks on Partnerize', using a specific verb and clearly identifying the resource. It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on traffic-side debugging and explicitly contrasting with list_transactions for conversions.

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 states 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions like 'are my links being clicked at all?' and 'where is traffic going on Partnerize?'. It also instructs to 'pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions', providing an explicit alternative and usage context.

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