affiliate_partnerstack-advertiser_get_programme_performance

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the output type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records) and the per-publisher rollup nature, adding behavioral context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or authorization requirements.

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, front-loaded with the main action, then usage examples, then complementary tools. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and parameter descriptions, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation, including example queries, companion tools, and output type. Some parameter details remain implicit, but overall it is quite 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 has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It hints at dates ('by date'), publisher IDs (via list_media_partners pairing), and programme/brand context, but leaves limit, cursor, offset, and parameter formats unexplained.

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 it fetches per-publisher performance with specific metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) by date. This distinguishes it from sibling transaction or media partner 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 gives explicit example user queries ('how is each publisher performing on PartnerStack (advertiser)?', 'show me the top-earning partners last month') and recommends pairing with list_media_partners and list_transactions, clarifying when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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