affiliate_partnerstack_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It does state the return type ('Click records') and indicates a read-only, recent-scoped operation, but omits pagination behavior, default date ranges, auth requirements, and details about what Click records contain.

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, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and return plus companion sibling. It is front-loaded and free of filler, with the examples adding practical texture without bloating the length.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 6 undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains why to use the tool but not enough about how to configure filters/pagination or what the returned Click records include.

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 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only generically mentions 'programme' and 'date' filters, never explicitly naming programmeId, from, to, or explaining cursor/offset/limit. This partially compensates but leaves most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent affiliate clicks on PartnerStack') with optional filters, clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing traffic-side debugging and explicitly contrasting with list_transactions for clicks vs conversions.

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 gives explicit use cases for traffic-side debugging with concrete examples ('are my links being clicked at all?', 'where is traffic going on PartnerStack?'). It also recommends pairing with list_transactions for conversion comparison, but it does not state explicit 'when not to use' exclusions.

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