affiliate_partnerize_list_programmes

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 discloses that the tool returns 'an array of Programme records,' which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination behavior (despite 'cursor' and 'limit' parameters), or whether the list includes only joined programmes or also available ones. These gaps leave the agent without a complete safety/behavioral profile.

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 primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It includes example queries, return type, and related tools without any fluff. This is an ideal example of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 description covers the basics: what the tool does, when to use it, return type, and related tools. However, with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not provide enough detail for an agent to confidently use filters (status, categories, search) or understand pagination. This is a medium-complexity tool, and the description leaves gaps for full autonomous usage.

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% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The description mentions the list content but does not explain how these parameters affect results. With no compensation from the description, the agent is left guessing about parameter usage.

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's function: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Partnerize (or which are available to join).' It uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('affiliate programmes'), and scopes it to Partnerize, distinguishing it from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks. The inclusion of example user queries further reinforces the 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?

The description gives explicit usage context with example queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Partnerize?') and states when to use it ('wants a partner inventory'). It also mentions complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), providing guidance on alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool vs alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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