affiliate_profitshare_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds some context by noting the tool lists both joined and available-to-join programmes and returns an array of Programme records. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or confirm this is a read-only operation, which the lack of annotations makes more critical.

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 appropriately concise: three sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The example queries and pairing note are useful. It is not wordy, though the second sentence could be slightly integrated without losing clarity.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose, return type, and companion tools, but omits behavior around pagination, filtering, and the meaning of status/categories. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently use all features, especially without any schema-level descriptions.

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 does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to filter or paginate. This is a major gap.

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 action ('List affiliate programmes'), the scope ('on Profitshare'), and differentiates from siblings like get_programme and list_transactions by noting it returns a list rather than a drill-down or activity log. The examples of user queries further pin down the intent.

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?

It explicitly provides when-to-use examples ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Profitshare?', 'wants a partner inventory') and suggests complementary tools (get_programme, list_transactions). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name an alternative for distinct use cases, so it misses the full bar for exclusionary guidance.

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