affiliate_partnerstack_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (joined vs available) and return type (array of Programme records), but does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how the status/categories filters affect results. These are meaningful behavioral gaps for a listing tool.

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?

Three sentences efficiently pack in the action, user query examples, and related tool pairings without waste. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns/links to.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is operationally incomplete. It covers purpose well but omits parameter semantics, response structure details (beyond 'array'), and behavior around filtering or pagination, leaving substantial ambiguity for an agent.

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. However, it provides no explanation of any of the 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories), leaving the agent with only raw types and no semantic guidance.

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 tool lists affiliate programmes on PartnerStack, explicitly naming the network and distinguishing between programmes the publisher has joined and those available to join. This differentiates it from the many 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 provides explicit trigger phrases ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on PartnerStack?') and suggests companion tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), giving concrete guidance on when to use this tool and how it fits into workflows.

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