affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (array of Programme records) and the inclusion of both joined and available-to-join programmes. However, it does not mention authentication needs, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage examples and related tools. The example queries add a little length but are useful for matching user intent.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, pagination, output shape beyond 'array', or any operational constraints, leaving the agent to guess significant details.

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% and the description provides no parameter meanings. The 7 parameters (brand, limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) are only bare property names in the schema, so the agent gets no guidance on formats, defaults, or expected values.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('affiliate programmes'), the platform ('Post Affiliate Pro'), and the scope ('joined or available to join'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list_programmes for other networks by naming the platform.

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 concrete example queries ('which merchants am I working with?') and pairs the tool with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the platform-specific naming makes the context clear.

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