affiliate_partnero_get_programme_performance

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 mentions the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records) and metrics, but does not disclose behavior around pagination (cursor/offset), date formats, filtering defaults, or any preconditions or side effects. For a read operation it's adequate but not deep.

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 core purpose, then usage examples, then output type and related tools. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted wording.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides moderate context: use cases, related tools, and output record type. However, it lacks parameter semantics, pagination details, and a fuller explanation of the return structure, leaving an agent with gaps for correct invocation.

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 only hints at date filtering ('by date') and publisher IDs (via list_media_partners). It does not explain the required 'brand' parameter, nor programmeId, limit, cursor, offset, or the format of from/to. With 8 parameters, this is a significant gap that the description does not compensate for.

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 fetches per-publisher performance for a Partnero programme, listing specific metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and date-scoping. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_programme or list_transactions, and the verb 'fetch' + resource 'per-publisher performance' is specific.

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 provides explicit example user queries ('how is each publisher performing on Partnero?', 'show me the top-earning partners last month') and says to pair with list_media_partners for publisher IDs and list_transactions for drill-down. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternative aggregate tools.

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