affiliate_pepperjam_list_programmes

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it returns an array and that programmes may be joined or available, but it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, filtering semantics, or error/rate-limit behavior. For a read tool, it leaves too much implicit beyond the name itself.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then usage context, output type, and companion tools. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a list tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, usage, return type, and sibling relationships, but it omits details about pagination (cursor/limit/offset), filter behavior (search/status/categories), and whether results are joined, available, or both. These gaps make the tool only somewhat complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The description does not explain any of them, their allowed values, or how they interact. Parameter names are only weakly self-explanatory, and ambiguous ones like 'status' and 'categories' need elaboration. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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-resource pair ('List affiliate programmes') and clearly scopes to Pepperjam. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'or which are available to join' and by giving example user queries, which helps identify this exact tool among many network-specific list_programmes.

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 when the user asks...' and provides example queries, which is clear context. It also names companion tools ('pairs naturally with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity'), giving alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for other networks), though the network-specific name implies this.

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