affiliate_rewardful_get_programme_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'Fetch' action and discloses the return type (ProgrammePerformanceRow records) and included metrics. However, it does not explain pagination behavior (limit/cursor/offset), date range requirements, or potential auth implications, which are relevant for a data-fetching 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?

The description is three sentences, with the primary action and metrics front-loaded in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add usage examples and related tool context without fluff. It is slightly longer than strictly minimal but every clause adds value.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, filter semantics, response structure beyond the row type, or how the various optional parameters affect results. It provides useful usage context but leaves major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly for non-trivial queries.

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 only adds minimal parameter context: it implies date-based filtering and per-publisher granularity, and hints at publisherId through the list_media_partners pairing. It does not explain the purpose of brand, to, from, programmeId, publisherId, limit, cursor, or offset beyond what raw names suggest. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 Rewardful', listing exact metrics (clicks, conversions, gross sale, commission). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing per-publisher rollup and the Rewardful network, making it uniquely identifiable.

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?

Provides explicit example user requests and context: 'Use this when the user asks...' and mentions pairing with list_media_partners and list_transactions for related tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a direct alternative that should be used instead in other scenarios, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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