affiliate_partnerstack-advertiser_list_programmes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the return type ('array of Programme records') and that results include both programmes the publisher has joined and those available to join, but it doesn't mention pagination, authentication, or any side effects.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage examples and a pairing note. It's concise and without fluff, though the example queries restate the platform context.

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?

This tool has seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the high-level purpose and return type. Essential details about the 'brand' parameter, pagination via cursor/limit/offset, and status/categories filtering are left unexplained, making it incomplete 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and seven parameters, the description fails to explain the required 'brand' parameter or any optional parameters like limit, cursor, offset, search, status, and categories. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'brand' is ambiguous and could refer to the publisher, advertiser, or network.

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 opens with a clear action: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on PartnerStack (advertiser)', and reinforces with concrete user query examples. It distinguishes from the sibling partnerstack_list_programmes by specifying the advertiser context, although the publisher/advertiser phrasing creates some ambiguity about the intended perspective.

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 provides explicit when-to-use signals via quoted user questions and describes a natural pairing with get_programme and list_transactions for downstream actions. It doesn't explicitly exclude the non-advertiser sibling variant, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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