affiliate_scaleo_list_programmes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('an array of Programme records') and the scope (joined or available to join). However, it omits pagination behavior (despite cursor/offset/limit params), auth requirements, and any side effects. This is adequate for a simple list operation but not richly transparent.

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 with front-loaded purpose, example queries, return type, and companion tool references. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a list tool with 6 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage examples, and return shape. It also mentions the joined/available distinction. However, it lacks parameter semantics and pagination details, leaving the agent under-informed for advanced filtering or paginated requests. Sufficient for tool selection but not full invocation.

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 missing parameter documentation. It does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema fields.

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: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Scaleo (or which are available to join).' It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_programmes tools by naming Scaleo and clarifying scope (joined vs available). It also references companion tools (get_programme, list_transactions), further differentiating its role.

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 queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Scaleo?') and suggests natural pairings with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context and examples make the intended usage clear.

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