affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow) and the core metrics, but it does not mention pagination behavior for cursor/offset parameters, default date ranges, or whether the operation is read-only. The term 'Fetch' implies a read, but mutability and filtering semantics are not explicitly disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage examples, then related tools. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a solid job of explaining what the tool returns (ProgrammePerformanceRow with key metrics) and how it fits into the broader workflow (pairing with other tools). It lacks some behavioral details like pagination defaults and response shape, but for a simple fetch tool, the core context is sufficiently covered.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of brand ('brand's programme'), date range (implied by 'by date'), and per-publisher grouping (implied by 'per-publisher' and 'publisher ids'). However, it omits meaning for limit, cursor, offset, and programmeId, leaving those parameters unexplained. The most important parameters are covered, but not all.

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 specific verb-resource combination ('Fetch per-publisher performance') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_programme and list_transactions by focusing on per-publisher rollup. It lists concrete metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and grounds the purpose with example user questions.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool with natural language query examples ('how is each publisher performing...', 'show me the top-earning partners last month'). It also names companion tools (list_media_partners, list_transactions) and explains how they complement this one, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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