affiliate_rewardful_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns an array of Programme records and lists both joined and available programmes, which is useful. However, it omits important behavioral details such as authentication requirements, pagination behavior (despite limit/cursor/offset params), and how the 'status' parameter affects results. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every sentence earns its place: it states the core function, gives usage triggers, describes the return value, and suggests related tools. It is compact and well-structured with no redundant 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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It covers purpose and return type but does not explain the required brand parameter or any of the filter/query parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). An agent would be left uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly beyond the basic call.

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 for the 7 parameters, but it mentions none of them explicitly. The required 'brand' parameter is not explained at all, and there is no guidance on what values 'status', 'categories', or 'search' expect. The description fails entirely to add semantic 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Rewardful'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools by naming the Rewardful platform and the scope (joined or available). It also provides example user queries, which makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 ('Use this when the user asks...') and gives concrete query examples. It also mentions natural companion tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity), which provides helpful context, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for exclusion.

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