affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it 'Returns Click records' and focuses on 'recent' clicks, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, required authentication, or rate limits, and it does not explain that 'brand' is a required parameter. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated. Overall, it adds some context but leaves important behavioral details undisclosed.

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 concise and well-structured: three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage examples and a pointer to a related tool. Every sentence earns its place with useful information and no fluff.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required 'brand' parameter, the format for date ranges, or the pagination mechanism. While it gives strong usage context, it lacks the essential operational details needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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 vaguely references 'programme and date' filters, which likely map to 'programmeId' and 'from/to', but it does not explain the required 'brand' parameter or the pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset). With 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool provides far too little parameter-level 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's function: 'List recent affiliate clicks on Post Affiliate Pro'. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate clicks on Post Affiliate Pro'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the platform and contrasting with 'list_transactions' (used for 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions. It also suggests pairing with 'list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions', which indicates an alternative/complementary tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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