affiliate_shareasale_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. It discloses that the tool returns Click records and is for listing, which implies read-only, but does not mention pagination behavior, date range defaults, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The use-case framing adds some context, but key behavioral details are absent.

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, each earning its place: the core action, the use case with examples, and the pairing suggestion. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it covers the main purpose, return type (Click records), and a supporting use case. However, it lacks essential details on pagination (cursor/offset/limit), date formats, and the structure of Click records, which an agent needs for correct 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. It explains the 'programme' and 'date' filters, which map to programmeId and to/from, but provides no detail on limit, cursor, offset, date format, or how filtering is applied. This partial coverage is helpful but insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 a specific action: 'List recent affiliate clicks on ShareASale' with an optional filter by programme and date. It distinguishes this tool from sibling list_clicks tools by including the network name and from other ShareASale tools (list_programmes, list_transactions) by focusing on clicks.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for traffic-side debugging' with concrete examples like 'are my links being clicked at all?'. It also names the companion tool, list_transactions, for comparing clicks vs conversions, giving clear guidance on when to combine tools.

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