affiliate_partnero_list_clicks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns Click records and can be filtered, and suggests a read-only list operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, date format, required brand parameter, or any potential side effects or authentication needs. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then return/alternative. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise and structured.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main use case and mentions returns, but it leaves out the meaning of the required `brand` parameter and how pagination works. It also does not elaborate on the structure of Click records. Given the moderate complexity and lack of schema descriptions, the description is helpful but not complete.

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 the 7 parameters. It only briefly mentions 'optionally filtered by programme and date', which partially explains `programmeId` and `from`/`to`, but it does not explain the required `brand` parameter or the pagination params (`limit`, `cursor`, `offset`). This is a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Partnero'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the network (Partnero) and the object type (clicks), and provides concrete usage examples. This clearly differentiates it from list_transactions and other network-specific tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and gives example questions, which tells when to use it. It also points to a complementary tool: 'pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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