affiliate_rakuten_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful context: the tool lists both joined and available programmes and returns an 'array of Programme records.' However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, authentication needs, or potential rate limits, which are relevant for a list tool with cursor/offset parameters. It adds some value but is not deeply transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: definition, usage triggers, and return/related tools. No fluff or redundancy. It is optimally concise and structured.

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 list tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it states the return type, scope, and related tools. However, it does not explain parameter use cases, pagination, or what a 'Programme record' contains, which are gaps given the lack of annotations and output schema. It is adequate for selection but incomplete for sophisticated invocation.

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 schema provides bare types without descriptions or enums, so an agent has no guidance on what values are valid (e.g., what statuses are allowed, how search works). The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Rakuten Advertising (or which are available to join).' It clearly identifies the network (Rakuten) and the scope (joined or available), which distinguishes it from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks. Example user queries are provided to reinforce the purpose.

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 clear when-to-use context via example queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Rakuten Advertising?') and mentions it pairs naturally with get_programme and list_transactions for drill-down. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for other networks), so it misses the 'when-not' guidance for a 5.

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