affiliate_profitshare_list_clicks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It states returns 'Click records' and mentions filtering, but is silent on pagination, ordering, default date ranges, or rate limits—important behaviors for a list tool with cursor/offset/limit parameters.

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?

Three compact sentences with all content earning its place: purpose, example use case, and a practical companion suggestion. No fluff, well front-loaded.

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 moderately complex tool (6 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for selection and basic invocation: it names the return type, optional filters, and a related tool. However, it leaves ambiguity around the meaning of 'recent' and doesn't mention pagination behavior, which could be clearer.

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 that results can be filtered by 'programme and date', which maps to programmeId and from/to, but leaves limit, cursor, and offset unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent affiliate clicks on Profitshare'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling click-list tools by naming the network. It also notes optional filtering by programme and date, clarifying scope beyond the tool's name.

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 states when to use the tool ('traffic-side debugging') with concrete example questions, and recommends pairing with list_transactions for click-to-conversion comparison. This gives clear selection guidance relative to sibling tools.

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