affiliate_refersion_list_clicks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates the tool returns Click records and supports optional filtering by programme and date, which implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not disclose pagination, default date ranges, auth requirements, or error behavior, which is insufficient for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and efficient.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin: it doesn't explain pagination, return format details, or required brand semantics. It's adequate for a simple listing but lacks essential context for correct 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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It covers the programme and date filters but ignores the required 'brand' parameter and the pagination params (limit, cursor, offset). The description adds some meaning for 3 of 7 parameters but leaves the rest unexplained.

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 tool lists recent affiliate clicks on Refersion, with optional filters. It specifies the resource (Refersion clicks) and verb (List), and the mention of Refersion plus the comparison to list_transactions distinguishes it from the many sibling list_clicks tools for other networks.

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 says 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' and gives example questions, providing clear context for when to use. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, which gives a complementary alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention other Refersion tools.

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