affiliate_refersion_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return shape ('array of Programme records') and the two-scope behavior (joined or available), but it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, authentication requirements, or side-effect safety. This is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, all informative and front-loaded with the core action. There is no fluff, and the natural pairing note adds value without bloating the text.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It covers purpose and return type but leaves parameter semantics and behavioral details (pagination, filtering, required brand) entirely to the user, making it inadequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It never explains the required 'brand' parameter or the optional filters like 'search', 'status', 'categories', 'limit', 'cursor', or 'offset'. The description is of no help in understanding how to pass arguments correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Refersion'), clearly distinguishing this from other network-specific list_programmes tools. It also clarifies that it includes both joined and available programmes, which further sharpens the scope.

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 provides explicit example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?') and a context ('wants a partner inventory'). It also pairs with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, which signals how to combine tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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