affiliate_scaleo_list_clicks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'Click records' and notes the 'recent' nature of clicks, implying a default time window. However, it does not explain pagination behavior, default date range, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 long, front-loads the action, and includes practical examples and a pairing suggestion. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, the description provides some context through use cases and return type, but it lacks details on pagination, default limits, and parameter semantics. The tool is simple, but an agent would need more information to invoke it confidently.

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 filtering 'by programme and date', which maps to programmeId and from/to, but it does not explain the purpose or format of limit, cursor, or offset. The meaning of 'recent' and the exact date format are also unspecified.

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 'List recent affiliate clicks on Scaleo' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming Scaleo and contrasting with list_transactions for clicks vs conversions comparison. Optional filters for programme and date are explicitly mentioned.

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 frames the use case as 'traffic-side debugging' and provides concrete example questions like 'are my links being clicked at all?' and 'where is traffic going on Scaleo?'. It also suggests pairing with list_transactions to compare clicks vs conversions, giving clear guidance on when to use the tool.

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