affiliate_pepperjam_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but only states that it lists recent clicks and returns click records. It doesn't describe pagination behavior, default date ranges, or any side effects. The schema hints at pagination through cursor/offset/limit, but the description itself doesn't add this context. It's not misleading, but it's minimal.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core function, gives practical use cases, and closes with return type and a pairing recommendation. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and use case but omits details about pagination, default behaviors, and the structure of click records. While it's competently written for a simple list tool, the lack of parameter and return details makes it only partially 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'programme and date', which covers programmeId, from, and to, but it doesn't explain the pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) or the exact date format. This is a partial compensation, leaving some parameters 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 states a clear action ('List recent affiliate clicks on Pepperjam'), specifies the resource (affiliate clicks on Pepperjam), and notes optional filters. It also provides example use cases ('are my links being clicked at all?') and distinguishes the tool from transaction listings by recommending pairing with list_transactions.

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 for traffic-side debugging' and gives concrete example questions, which tells the agent when to use it. It also recommends pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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