affiliate_rakuten_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does mention that the tool returns recent clicks, optional filters, and that the output consists of Click records. However, it omits how pagination (cursor, limit, offset) works, what the date parameters mean, or any default time window, so significant behavioral traits remain unstated.

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 sized at three sentences, with the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a concrete use case, and the third directs to a related tool, so every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 description covers the central purpose, usage context, and relationship to list_transactions, which is helpful. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the absence of pagination and parameter details makes it incomplete for a 6-parameter tool with all-optional arguments.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate. It explains that filtering by 'programme and date' is possible, which maps to programmeId and from/to, but it does not describe limit, cursor, or offset, leaving the pagination parameters unexplained. It doesn't mention date formats or which parameter is the start vs end date.

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 explicitly states 'List recent affiliate clicks on Rakuten Advertising' with a specific verb (List) and resource (affiliate clicks on Rakuten Advertising). It also hints at optional filtering by programme and date, and the mention of pairing with list_transactions distinguishes it from the transaction-listing sibling.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete example questions. It also suggests 'pair with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions,' which indirectly tells when not to use this tool alone. This is clear guidance for an AI agent.

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