affiliate_partnero_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return type ('Returns an array of Programme records') and scope ('joined... or available to join'), but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. For a list operation this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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-loads the core purpose, and includes example queries and related tool references without unnecessary verbiage. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential purpose and usage guidance but omits parameter semantics, filter behaviors, and pagination details. It is a viable minimum but leaves notable gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 parameter details. The 7 parameters (brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) are left unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the schema gap. This is a critical failure for tool selection/invocation.

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 verb 'List' and the resource: 'affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Partnero (or which are available to join)'. It also provides concrete example user queries, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks.

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 when the user asks...' and gives specific example phrases, providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It also mentions natural pairings with get_programme and list_transactions, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., other network tools), so it's not a full 5.

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