affiliate_refersion_get_programme_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source for behavioral context. It discloses the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records) and implies aggregation by date/publisher. However, it does not mention pagination (despite limit/cursor/offset params), authentication requirements, or how the metrics are calculated. While it adds some value, the burden on the description without annotations is only partially met.

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: a concise definition, usage triggers, and a pointer to related tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant phrases or noise.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent. It omits parameter details, pagination handling, and return field descriptions. Although it gives a useful overview, it does not provide enough operational detail for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It loosely ties 'brand's programme' to the brand parameter and suggests date/publisher context, but it does not explain the format or semantics of from/to, programmeId, publisherId, limit, cursor, or offset. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Fetch per-publisher performance for the brand's programme at Refersion' and enumerates metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission) and date granularity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions and get_programme by focusing on the per-publisher rollup.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with natural-language examples ('how is each publisher performing on Refersion?', 'show me the top-earning partners last month'). It also references companion tools: 'pair with list_media_partners to discover publisher ids and list_transactions for transaction-level drill-down', which signals when to use alternatives for deeper detail.

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