affiliate_rewardful_list_clicks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation lists recent clicks (implying a read operation) and returns Click records, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, date format expectations, or authentication requirements, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the tool's runtime behavior.

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: the first states the function, the second gives usage context with examples, and the third mentions the return type and a complementary tool. Each sentence adds unique value with no redundancy or fluff, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and return type, which is helpful. However, with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, it leaves significant gaps around pagination, date semantics, and the required brand field. It is a reasonable baseline but not comprehensive enough for a tool with 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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'programme' and 'date' filters, which likely map to programmeId and from/to, but it does not explain the remaining pagination parameters (limit, cursor, offset) or the required brand parameter. The schema provides only names, not types or descriptions, so the agent cannot confidently construct correct calls for all parameters.

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 'List recent affiliate clicks on Rewardful' which clearly identifies the action (list), resource (clicks), and platform (Rewardful), distinguishing it from sibling list_clicks tools for other networks. It further specifies optional filters for programme and date, making the purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete diagnostic examples like 'are my links being clicked at all?' and 'where is traffic going on Rewardful?'. It also advises pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, offering clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative list_clicks tools for other networks.

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